Question: Read the following context and answer the question. Context: Just minutes after Donald Trump fired Rex Tillerson on Tuesday, the president was blunt about his long-standing differences with his former secretary of state. "We disagreed on things," Trump told reporters outside the White House, specifically pointing to friction over the Iran nuclear agreement. "I wanted to either break it or do something, and he felt a little bit differently," Trump said. "We were really not thinking the same." Trump reportedly had considered firing Tillerson for months. But the decision - and the abrupt way it was executed - represents a dramatic end to a strained relationship. Tillerson learned of his firing by an early-morning Trump tweet, according to Steve Goldstein, undersecretary of state. White House officials disputed that notion, and promptly fired Goldstein. The move left some of Trump's staunchest defenders with mixed feelings. "It's all very Trumpian," said James Carafano of the conservative Heritage Foundation, who helped staff the State Department as a member of Trump's transition team. "When the president makes changes, he just abruptly makes them." During his 14 months at the State Department, Tillerson had numerous policy differences with Trump - and the friction frequently played out in public. The animosity peaked in October, when news surfaced that Tillerson reportedly called Trump a "moron" following a July Pentagon meeting. Tillerson never explicitly denied the account. Tillerson also publicly disagreed with Trump's decision to pull out of the Paris climate accord. He reportedly opposed Trump's decision to move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. And Tillerson sometimes took a tougher stance than Trump on Russia including this week, when he blamed Moscow for a suspected nerve agent attack in Britain. In return, Trump on numerous occasions publicly undermined his top diplomat, including in October when he tweeted Tillerson was "wasting his time" trying to negotiate with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. When Trump ultimately made his decision last week to... Question: After the end of the story, Tillerson probably is Answer:
OPTIONS:
- discussing what his next career move will be
- remaining silent
- not enough information
- happy to finally be away from the negative situation
Answer: happy to finally be away from the negative situation

input with options: Read the following context and answer the question. Context: And once again, high blood pressure is making headlines in the news: the American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology (AHA/ACC) have just released new guidelines about hypertension. Since this development is likely to cause confusion and concern for many, I'm writing this post to help you understand the debate and what this might mean for you and your family. By the way, if you've read any of my other blood pressure articles on this site, let me reassure you: I am not changing my clinical practice or what I recommend to others, based on the new AHA/ACC guidelines. The core principles of better blood pressure management for older adults remain the same: * Take care in how you and your doctors measure blood pressure (more on that here), * Start by aiming to get blood pressure less than 150/90 mm Hg, as recommended by these expert guidelines issued in 2017 and in 2014, * And then learn more about what are the likely benefits versus risks of aiming for more intensive BP control. Perhaps the most important thing to understand is this: treatment of high blood pressure in older adults offers "diminishing returns" as we treat BP to get lower and lower. Scientific evidence indicates that the greatest health benefit, when it comes to reducing the risk of strokes and heart attacks, is in getting systolic blood pressure from high (i.e. 160-180) down to moderate (140-150). From there, the famous SPRINT study, published in 2015, did show a further reduction in cardiovascular risk, when participants were treated to a lower systolic BP, such as a target of 120. However, this was in a carefully selected group of participants, it required taking three blood pressure medications on average, and the reduction in risk was small. As I note in my article explaining SPRINT Senior, in participants aged 75 or older, pushing to that lower goal was associated with an estimated 1-in-27 chance of avoiding a cardiovascular event. (The benefit was even smaller in adults aged 50-75.) Question: How long before the release of this article were the new AHA released? Answer:
OPTIONS:
- Within the last year.
- Within the last week.
- not enough information
- Within the last three months.
output: Within the last week.

Q: Read the following context and answer the question. Context: Facebook has a long track record and sordid history of abusing their users' trust and privacy, including the most recent and egregious cases currently making headlines with Cambridge Analytica as well as election meddling in the US and Britain. As if that wasn't enough, it then came to light that they have also been tracking and storing users' phone call and text message data, including "who contacted whom, what time, and how long the conversation was." This is nothing new, as we can see from this 2012 "study" in which they deliberately manipulated news feeds to influence users' emotional state. And again with their settlement with the FCC back in 2011 (that they likely violated with their recent offenses) over deceiving consumers by telling them their information was private, but then repeatedly sharing it and making it public. And then there's The Ugly Memo, in which a FB exec justifies growth at any cost in the name of connecting people, even if that results literally in people dying: We talk about the good and the bad of our work often. I want to talk about the ugly. We connect people. That can be bad if they make it negative. Maybe it costs a life by exposing someone to bullies. Maybe someone dies in a terrorist attack coordinated on our tools. And still we connect people. The ugly truth is that we believe in connecting people so deeply that anything that allows us to connect more people more often is *de facto* good. And up until this most recent Cambridge Analytica scandal, Facebook was negotiating with various healthcare organizations to share patients' health data with FB so they could match it up to your social circle to allegedly provide better health care. Um yeah right. Each time this stuff happens, they issue an apology (or a justification for their behavior) and promise they will take steps to better inform users and protect their privacy, but it's clear that this is just lip service at this point. Question: Who is FCC? Answer:

OPTIONS:
- Facebook User
- Regulatory body
- not enough information
- Narrator

A:
not enough information