input with options: Read the following context and answer the question. Context: In 1981, when I was nine years old, my father took me to see Raiders of the Lost Ark. Although I had to squint my eyes during some of the scary scenes, I loved it in particular because I was fairly sure that Harrison Ford's character was based on my dad. My father was a palaeontologist at the University of Chicago, and I'd gone on several field trips with him to the Rocky Mountains, where he seemed to transform into a rock-hammer-wielding superhero. That illusion was shattered some years later when I figured out what he actually did: far from spending his time climbing dangerous cliffs and digging up dinosaurs, Jack Sepkoski spent most of his career in front of a computer, building what would become the first comprehensive database on the fossil record of life. The analysis that he and his colleagues performed revealed new understandings of phenomena such as diversification and extinction, and changed the way that palaeontologists work. But he was about as different from Indiana Jones as you can get. The intertwining tales of my father and his discipline contain lessons for the current era of algorithmic analysis and artificial intelligence (AI), and points to the value-laden way in which we "see" data. My dad was part of a group of innovators in palaeontology who identified as "palaeobiologists" meaning that they approached their science not as a branch of geology, but rather as the study of the biology and evolution of past life. Since Charles Darwin's time, palaeontology especially the study of the marine invertebrates that make up most of the record involved descriptive tasks such as classifying or correlating fossils with layers of the Earth (known as stratigraphy). Some invertebrate palaeontologists studied evolution, too, but often these studies were regarded by evolutionary biologists and geneticists as little more than "stamp collecting". Question: How long was the movie Raiders of the Lost Ark Answer:
OPTIONS:
- not enough information
- between 120 and 180 minutes
- 20 minutes
- 50 minutes
output: between 120 and 180 minutes

Q: Read the following context and answer the question. Context: There is no hiding from the impact agenda. The impact weighting of the Research Excellence Framework has been increased for 2021, and more recently the UK Government announced a new funding stream for knowledge exchange. But achieving impact isn't easy, especially for researchers early in their careers. If you ever have a spare week, or ten, it's worth reading through some of the 6,637 REF impact case studies on the HEFCE website. There are some brilliant and fascinating examples of how researchers have achieved impact, but what strikes me most is how different impact looks across different subjects. At the risk of being flippant, among many of the medical or technological examples there is a familiar pattern and a clear route to impact: make breakthrough; license drug/technology; save lives/millions. For social and political science (not to mention economics, languages, education, philosophy, etc.) the route to impact is much more fragmented. Among the 97 sociology case studies, for example, impact comes from numerous briefings of government officials and parliamentarians, before the academics join "networks" and "committees" discussing their research and wider issues. Their research is covered by national media, they meet even more people practitioners or third sector campaigning organisations to pass on their knowledge. And, after all that, and often a good deal more, sometimes there is a policy or practice change that can be pointed to as a direct impact, sometimes not. Central to much of the impact is "access". Prominent and experienced academics are more likely to get on the committees, know the right journalists and government officials, and have links into third sector organisations, etc. I worked with Professor Sir John Curtice, of election night fame, for a number of years. He didn't need much support. I advised and facilitated, but after 30 years in the game he knew Whitehall (and Holyrood) inside and out and they knew him. But many researchers, especially at the start of their careers, don't... Question: Why isn't achieving impact easy? Answer:

OPTIONS:
- impact requires people to have perseverance
- impact requires many people
- not enough information
- Impact requires access

A: Impact requires access

Read the following context and answer the question. Context: U.S. voters head to the polls in November for a high-stakes congressional midterm election in which Republican control of both the House of Representatives and the Senate appears to be in jeopardy. The outcome of the elections could have a profound impact on U.S. President Donald Trump as well, and the president is starting to take notice. At a recent campaign-style rally in Washington, Michigan, Trump turned up the heat on opposition Democrats: "A vote for a Democrat in November is a vote for open borders and crime. It's very simple," he said. Opinion polls give Democrats an edge looking ahead to the balloting in November, and Trump is trying to get his supporters excited about turning out at the polls. "You know what it is? You get complacent," he said. "We cannot be complacent. We have to go out, right?" The president also told supporters not to pay attention to Democrats who insist they have the House all but won in November. "We've got to go out and we've got to fight like hell and we have got to win the House and win the Senate," Trump told the audience. "And I think we are going to do great in the Senate and I think we are going to do great in the House because the economy is so good." According to the website RealClearPolitics, the Democrats enjoy a generic ballot advantage of nearly 7 percentage points over the Republicans looking ahead to November. RealClearPolitics averaged several recent polls and found that 45.6 percent of those surveyed said they would support Democratic congressional candidates in November, compared with 38.9 percent who said they would vote for Republicans. Analysts see the generic ballot as a key indicator of party strength heading into the midterms. Historically, the president's party usually loses congressional seats two years after winning the White House.The losses are usually worse if the president's public approval rating is under 50 percent. Trump's approval has recently averaged about 41 percent. Question: What did Trump think of his approval rating? Answer:

OPTIONS:
- he thought he could do better
- he thought it was correct
- not enough information
- he thought it was inaccurate

Answer:
not enough information