When we got married we thought it was going to be all bliss and happiness for life. By about week two we both had an awakening. Something about being exact opposites and together 24/7. We clashed about something so important I can't even remember what it was. We hadn't really ever had that happen while engaged. Suddenly we realized that the bliss and excitement was growing into, well, everyday life. And all that passionate romance that had driven our relationship was growing, well, less passionate. We both realized our marriage had entered a new phase, one of many, through the years. And we needed to be much more purposeful about making sure it worked. Purposeful because the blinding emotional love some days seemed to be asleep. Yet, we both had committed to our marriage. For better or worse. So we decided we had the potential for either. We needed to make it better or it would become worse. We learned to really talk. Even when it was difficult. We learned to argue without hurting each other. We purposefully expressed love even in those times we didn't especially feel it. We built romance into our relationship even when we didn't feel romantic. And through the years our relationship has grown. Sometimes through difficult times. Heck, sometimes through difficult eras. Yet, we both never gave up the dream of making our marriage great. We never gave up the ideal of living together in love for a lifetime. And because of that, through all the trials and triumphs. Through all the frustration and bliss. Through all the sameness and romance. We still everyday enjoy our love and each other. And can't imagine life without the other. Well actually, there have been probably a couple of those days for my wife. She's just too nice to say it. A great marriage isn't built because it's perfect. Only because you keep trying to make it perfect. Question: How many children did they have? === The answer to the above question is

OPTIONS:
- not enough information
- 5
- 1
- 0

Answer: not enough information

Problem: OPTIONS:
- The school bus
- The truck
- not enough information
- The Indian's man car
Q: "India is OUR country" The quote we often preach but forget to deliver. I joined a club recently where I met a true Indian. I asked him about the most vivid memory of his life. One morning, as he was heading towards his office, he realized that the road he regularly takes was unusually bumpy. Upon inspection, he came to the conclusion that a truck carrying stones passed by on that road and unintentionally scattered few stones along the way. He believed that the authority of the truck will take care of this later that day. Next morning, the road situation was unchanged with stones still scattered. He parked his vehicle nearby, put on some music and started kicking the stones off the road. Within a few minutes, a school bus stopped by, students gathered around and started clapping for this true Indian. As he turned around, he said "Helping hands are better than clapping hands". As a repercussion, the students started helping this man kick the stones off the road. A task that would have taken hours to be done by one person was completed in a couple of minutes. What a great example of team work! It was this man's discretionary efforts that brought a change in the thought process of the students, India's next generation. We all point fingers and blame one another for societal problems but never act upon it. If this man, a true Indian, would have just blammed the truck driver and went on his way, would the road still be cleared? The next time we point fingers at someone for a social cause, we must keep in mind that that someone is an Indian just like us. Will a true Indian point fingers at an Indian? Are we pointing fingers at ourselves? In the end, we are all in the same team. Question: What vehicle dropped stones on the road? === The answer to the above question is
Answer: The truck

Problem:OPTIONS:
- He's inspired by her passion and interest in landscape destruction
- not enough information
- He is impressed by her authoring the book Gardens of the Renaissance
- He complements her work with Giovanni Bellini

Bryan C. Keene and Alexandra Kaczenski of the Getty Museum's Manuscripts Department have spent the last few years preparing for an exhibition and publication titled Sacred Landscapes: Nature in Renaissance Manuscripts that aims to examine representations of "green spaces" such as gardens, vistas, and their relation to the divine. In particular, Bryan and Alexandra focus on the ways in which artists during the European Middle Ages and Renaissance embedded the pages of illuminated manuscripts with depictions of the natural world so that nature could guide prayer, chant, and meditation. For Bryan, this project represents a continuation of his interest in sacred gardens that began with his graduate work on the garden imagery that influenced Botticelli's Agony in the Garden painting. In 2013 he curated the exhibition and authored the accompanying book Gardens of the Renaissance. For Alexandra, interest in this subject stems from her scholarly focus on Flemish manuscripts and their relation to Flemish landscape paintings. She brought to the project a complementary interest in issues of environmental and landscape destruction, which also were themes of the exhibition and publication. Though floral and nature studies of the Renaissance and Early Modern periods have been extensively investigatedthe scientific notebooks of Leonardo da Vinci, for example, are well documentedthis exhibition turns its focus on landscape and the divine. Curatorial research has shed new light on subjects such as the seemingly "scattered" floral arrangements represented within the pages of these books and their relationship to humoral theory and religion. Bryan adds, "The tension that we find in these borders is, on the one hand, intricately rendered leaf and petal structures of plants or flowers, and on the other, hidden whimsical elements, all of which combine to create a rich tapestry of meaning, both symbolic and scientific. Alex and I will continue to explore the potential meaning within this botanical and arboreal chaos." Sacred... Question: How does Bryan probably feel about working with Alexandra? === The answer to the above question is
****
A: He's inspired by her passion and interest in landscape destruction

input with options: NOT A PROBLEM: Person A: I was really surprised to learn that your mum used to live in Wales. Person B: My mum? No, she never did that. You must be thinking of someone else. Person A: No, I'm not. I told her how my parents are from Cardiff and she said she'd lived in Newport until she was 18. Person B: She did not. Person A: Yes, she did. Person B: Nope. She'd have told me. Person A: Well, where do you think she grew up, then? Person B: In Yorkshire, of course. Like the rest of us. Person A: You're wrong, you know. Person B: Bet I'm not. Person A: OK, well, I'm going to phone her and ask her. You'll see. PROBLEM: Person C: You still have my Kindle. Person D: I do not. I gave it back to you two weeks ago. Person C: No, you didn't. You said you were going to, but you never actually gave it to me. Person D: I did. I remember. It was when we were having lunch in Starbucks. Person C: No, that's when you said you'd left it in your car and would get it when we'd finished eating but then you forgot all about it. Person D: Look, I gave it back to you. I think you're just trying to get a new Kindle out of me, and let me tell you: it ain't gonna work. Person C: You're just trying to keep my Kindle for yourself. Well, I'm not going to let you get away with it. I'm going to tell your mum, so there. It really depends whether the parents are in a position to shed any light on the contentious issue or if involving them would just make an awkward situation worse. If parental input will be helpful, welcome the chance to confer with them; if it won't, let the other person do what they will and trust your parents to have more sense than to get involved in a purely private argument. Question: Who lived in Newport until she was 18? === The answer to the above question is
OPTIONS:
- Person D's mum
- Person C's mum
- not enough information
- Person B's mum
output:
Person B's mum