Problem: OPTIONS:
- because of other complications
- not enough information
- because they were consuming too many carbohydrates
- because they were consuming too much fat
Q: Read the following context and answer the question. Context: Called the PURE (Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology) study, this was a very large observational study looking at the link between fat and carbohydrate consumption and longevity in 18 countries across 5 continents. Running for 7 years and involving over 135,000 people, this was a very big study so its conclusions are right to take notice of. The key finding from the work that attracted the most media attention was that a high carbohydrate diet was linked with a higher risk of earlier mortality, whereas total fat and individual types of fat were related to a lower risk of earlier mortality. Digging deeper into the study, the research team found that global diets consisted of 61 percent energy coming from carbohydrates and 24 percent energy from fats. And while those in the highest carbohydrate consumption group (a whopping 77 percent of energy) had a higher risk of earlier death, it wasn't cardiovascular disease they were dying from. What those other causes of death were exactly is unclear. Perhaps getting hit by a car running for a Mars Bar was one of them as a recent commenter on my Facebook page theorised. A paradigm shift? Not quite Does this study turn on its head 'everything we knew about nutrition?' Not quite. And here's why. Before the PURE study, there were many studies showing the opposite link between carbohydrates and longevity. So, when a conflicting study comes along, this grabs the media spotlight for the day. Here is just one example a major systematic review and meta-analysis from 2013 involving 17 individual studies and over 242,000 people showing a higher risk of earlier mortality as carbohydrate intake decreased. And this is the problem at times with observational research in that two studies can give polar opposite results so the findings of the PURE study should be seen through this filter. I'm not going to pick apart the PURE study for its flaws. Such issues are consistent across all observational studies no matter if the conclusions support consensus views or not. What is of value to... Question: Why did people die prematurely? Answer:
Answer: because they were consuming too many carbohydrates

Problem:OPTIONS:
- The narrator
- The narrator's neighbor
- not enough information
- The narrator's wife

Read the following context and answer the question. Context: Thanks Richard for asking. Yes. I have something to tell. We have record rainfall during 24 hours in Lahore, breaking previous one day record by more than 60%. Our drainage system is pathetic. Other systems such as telephone, electricity, cable etc. are no better. Poor planning has further been aggravated by extremely mismanaged maintenance and operational bugs. This morning, when I was out for our fajr (morning prayers) in masjid, a neighbor told me that the pole laden with electricity meters was under fire. After that he buzzed off for complaint office. When I returned after prayers, I saw fire reaching cable part after meter; one meter had caught fire and other meters (including ours) was in danger of catching fire. It was still dark. I waited for someone to come out. No one appeared. I came inside and told my wife about and went again out to see if I could find someone to go about extinguishing fire. IT WAS DAM RISKY AS DIGGING WAS DONE BY TELEPHONE COMPANY AND RAINS HAD MADE A MESS ON OUR STREET. No one was seen. My wife came out; brought hose pipe. I managed to use it as water gun and there was some post-extinguishing sparking; fire was put out. I want to add here that hose pipe should only be used when someone knows how to send bursts of water so that electric current cannot build a circuit. Later in day we heard about the most stupid thing; people were inside their houses, watching flames from pole but not knowing what to do. THEY DID NOT EVEN COME OUT TO SHARE THE ACTIVITY. That has happened today. I am going to ask everyone about it one by one. Also, I am still looking for the guy who went to complaint office and was never seen thereafter this morning. That can happen to anybody. Question: Who put out the fire? Answer:
****
A: The narrator

input: OPTIONS:
- North Korea released the three prisoners in order to force a visit from the US president.
- North Korea released the three prisoners so that they would not die like Otto Warmbier.
- not enough information
- North Korea released the three prisoners in order to show that they are serious about negotiating in the upcoming summit. Now, answer this question: Read the following context and answer the question. Context: North Korea's release of three U.S. citizens may help pave the way for talks between Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un, but questions remain as to whether those talks will succeed. At the White House on Wednesday, Trump continued to speak cautiously about the coming summit, even while praising the North Korean leader for the prisoner release. "Everything can be scuttled," Trump told reporters. "A lot of things can happen a lot of good things can happen, [and] a lot of bad things can happen." North Korea on Wednesday granted amnesty to three Americans of Korean descent. They had been accused of espionage or trying to overthrow the government, charges widely seen as bogus. Pyongyang has detained at least 16 Americans over the past two decades, often attempting to use them as bargaining chips. All were eventually released, although Otto Warmbier, a 22-year-old college student, died shortly after returning to the United States last year. A White House statement Wednesday praised North Korea's latest prisoner release as a "positive gesture of goodwill" ahead of the Trump-Kim summit, which is expected to take place as soon as next month. South Korea's presidential office said Pyongyang's decision was a "very positive" sign for a successful North Korea-U.S. meeting. The freeing of the prisoners coincided with a visit to Pyongyang by U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who declined to say whether the release was a U.S. precondition for holding talks with the North. "I don't know the answer to that," Pompeo told reporters on the flight home. "It would have been more difficult [had the prisoners not been released]. ... I'm glad that we don't have to confront that." It's not clear what, if anything, the U.S. gave up in exchange for the prisoners. It's not even clear a concession was needed, since North Korea has for decades sought the presumed legitimacy provided by a summit with a sitting U.S. president. Question: Secretary of State Mike Pompeo probably thinks that: Answer:
A:
output:
North Korea released the three prisoners in order to show that they are serious about negotiating in the upcoming summit.