In this task, you're given an article, a question which often contains a blank and four options (associated with "A", "B", "C", "D"). Your task is to find the correct answer (from the given options) for the question from the given article and return one of the options from "A", "B", "C", and "D". Do not generate anything else apart from one of the following characters: "A", "B", "C", "D". There is only one correct answer for each question.

[EX Q]: Article: When policy experts debate climate change solutions, they often talk about "a price on carbon." They are arguing about whether companies should pay when they put carbon pollution in the air. Proponents say that it's simple economics -- if it's free to pollute, you'll get a lot of pollution. Opponents claim it will raise the cost of energy that's produced from high carbon sources, like coal. But here's the secret that most people seem to be missing: There already is a price on carbon, and it's paid by the taxpayers. Carbon pollution, like every other form of pollution, has an impact on the environment. Throwing waste into a river will cause the fish to die and the people who drink the water to get sick. And when you produce carbon pollution, you get climate change -- sea level rise, stronger storms, severe droughts, damage to agriculture, and more. All of those impacts cost money. Insurance rates go up when storms get more destructive. Taxes increase when cities have to rebuild bridges and roads. Military budgets go up when droughts and population changes cause conflicts. Not to mention impacts on agriculture and health care costs. In other words, the price on carbon is what we all pay when there is no market force to limit the pollution that causes climate change. So the debate is really about who will pay that price -- the companies who are making a profit from the fossil fuels, or the taxpayers who pick up the cost now? Right now, we have private profit and public cost. It's just like if we allowed every business to throw its garbage in the street because it's too expensive to have it moved away properly. Does it add a little bit to your dinner check to require that restaurants dispose of their trash properly? Sure. But it would be more expensive for you if the city had to clean the streets of their garbage every day. So just like we put a "price on garbage" we need a "price on carbon pollution." Now, a "price on carbon pollution" can mean a lot of things. You could tax companies based on the amount of carbon pollution they produce, and return the money to taxpayers. You could put a limit on how much they can produce, thereby requiring them to invest in ways to conduct business in a less polluting way.
Question: What do the policy experts argue about carbon pollution?
Options: (A) Whether the companies should pay for it. (B) Whether taxpayers could get profit from it. (C) Who have the ability to change it. (D) How much should be paid for it.
[EX A]: A

[EX Q]: Article: Everyone is busy nowadays.It's hard to find time for anything.From the time we wake up in the morning until the time we go to bed, it's hard to find 30 minutes to simply be by yourself.If you are married with children, I know you can relate to what I am saying. I would love to have a few days when I come home to an empty house with peace and quiet. There are days when you wish everyone on the other side of the door would simply disappear for about an hour so you can come home and relax without having to start dinner, bathe children, iron clothes for the next day. In fact, finding time to be by yourself is totally necessary if you wish to live a happy, and purpose driven life. If there is noise going on around you it's impossible to hear the quiet voice that speaks inside of us--that guides us and gives us direction on which path we should take and that is no good. Most of the stuff that we need- to get done, does nothing towards our personal development.If you simply let life direct you, you will find that there is never time to take simply for yourself. Yes, you can schedule a vacation every now and then and that is great. No matter how busy your life may be, spend time each day by yourself to think and reflect on life and listen to that inner voice. So by yourself! Go somewhere you won't be disturbed by the children, the _ , the phone, the television, the radio, or your emails. Go somewhere you can have total peace and quiet.Pick a time that is convenient for you.
Question: Who does the writer intend to write to?
Options: (A) Students. (B) Married women. (C) Children. (D) Husbands.
[EX A]: B

[EX Q]: Article: An annoying problem for humans, who like to boast about all the distant planets and moons we have explored, is that we've never taken a good look right under our noses. The inside of the earth is relatively close, but how can we get there? The deepest oil well enters a mere six miles into the crust (the center of the earth is about 4,000 miles deeper). Russian scientists dug the deepest hole in Siberia, but bottomed out at about 7.5 miles below the surface. The Mohole project, a U.S. plan in the 1950s, called for drilling a hole 25 miles down to the boundary between the hard rocks of the crust and the soft mantle . Sadly the project involved government supporting. It gets harder and harder to drill deep into the earth because rocks get softer and softer. Hard but easily broken at the surface, rocks become plastic at depth, and the pressure caused by the weight of the overlaying crust --- about 52,800 pounds per square inch at a depth of ten miles, makes further drilling impossible. What little we know about the inside of the earth (like the fact that there's a crust, a mantle, and a core) comes from indirect evidence, such as the analysis of earthquakes. So maybe it's time for a thorough new method to explore the earth's inside. Scientist David Stevenson says we should forget about drilling holes. Instead, we should open a crack . Stevenson suggests digging a crack about a half mile long, a yard wide, and a half mile deep (not with a shovel) but with an explosion on the scale of a nuclear bomb. Next, he'd pour a few hundred thousand tons of molten iron into the crack, along with a robot. The iron, thicker than the surrounding crust, would move downward at about 16 feet per second, carrying the robot with it and opening the crack deeper and deeper. The iron mass would drop for about a week and 2,000 miles to the outer edge of the earth core, the robot sending out data to the surface. Stevenson compares his idea to space exploration. "We're going somewhere we haven't been before,"he says. "In all possibility, there will be surprises." This idea can probably be put in the drawer marked with Isn't Going To Happen. The robot would have to survive temperatures that would melt pretty much anything. But Stevenson's idea may inspire a new look at an old problem. Great things can come from what seems like impossible ideas.
Question: Going inside the earth is _ than going into space.
Options: (A) more interesting (B) more possible (C) easier (D) more challenging
[EX A]:
D