In this task, you're given an article and an answer. Your task is to generate the question for the answer based on the given article.

[Q]: Article: For a long time, the traditional method of identifying liars was to watch their body language, including facial expressions. What if the person appears to be nervous? Is the person unable to look me in the eye? Is he or she look around the room? What about other nervous movements, such as fidgeting or shifting from side to side? Many people--from parents to police officers and airport security personnel--depend on this method. But does a person's body and face reveal the truth? Not according to a new study. Talking, it seems, is the best way to smoke out a liar. That is what researchers in the United Kingdom found out recently. Their investigation took place at one place where lying can get you into big trouble--an airport. The researchers asked volunteers to pretend they were real passengers and then lie to airport security agents. Some of the agents used spoke conversation-based methods to question these make-believe passengers. Others depended instead on the person's body language, like lack of eye contact and showing signs of nervousness. The agents talking with the passengers were 20 times more likely to catch the liars. The study found that these conversation-based techniques can help you recognize when a person is lying to you. Like many methods, this conversation method has a name. It is called Controlled Cognitive Engagement or CCE, for short. The British government partly financed this study. The American Psychological (APA) published the findings. Body language cannot be trusted. Using body language and facial expressions to catch someone in a lie is really hard. And it only works, seemingly, by chance. Thomas Ormerod is the head of the School of Psychology at the University of Sussex in England. On the APA website, he reported that the "suspicious-signs method"--or using body language--"almost completely fails" in finding lies.
Answer: Communicate with researchers by talking.
[A]: What should volunteers in the investigation do?

[Q]: Article: During a recent phone interview with a mom who had just moved to Colorado, the conversation turned to disaster planning." I am standing here looking out of the window at the smoke from wildfires," she told me, "and have absolutely no idea what we will do if the wind shifts our way." Fortunately, the fire was put out, saving her home. Making a disaster plan isn't something anyone does for fun. But being caught without one in a time of need is worse. Emergency management officials say too few families have a disaster plan ,even in areas that have been hit hard by hurricanes or flooding. I have prepared food, water, flashlights, candles, a battery-powered radio and firewood since our family was hit years ago by a hurricane that blocked off streets and knocked out our power for more than a week. Still we lack the medications, emergency contacts, and emergency-meeting and pet-care plans we should also have .Officials in my state of Oregon have warned us that one of us is really ready for the major disaster which is very likely to hit here---- a big earthquake. Working parents need to coordinate their disaster plans with their children's schools or child-care centers. Many parents in the 2003 New York blackout weren't able to get home to their children because public traffic was stopped and lights were out. After that, many parents made detailed plans with child-care providers about where to meet in emergencies, an whom to contact if unable to reach each other. Good emergency planning and training helped teachers at a child-care center in the World Trade Center successfully move children to a safe place during the 2001 terrorist attacks. Do you have an emergency plan for your home? If not, you know what to do.
Answer: Medicine
[A]: Which of the following things has the writer NOT prepared for disasters?

[Q]: Article: I hated dinner parties. But I decided to give them another _ because I'm in London. And my friend Mallery invited me. And because dinner parties in London are very different from those in New York, "I'm having a dinner party" means: "I'm booking a table for 12 at a restaurant and we'll be sharing the cheque evenly , no matter what you eat." In Manhattan there is always someone who leaves before the bill arrives. They'll throw down cash, half of what they owe, and then people like me, who don't drink, end up paying even more. But if you try to use the same trick, the hostess will shout: "Where are you going ?" And I cannot say I have somewhere to go because everyone knows I have nowhere to go. But in London, dinner parties are in people's homes. Not only that, the guests are an interesting mix. The last time I went to one, the guests were from France, India, Denmark and Nigeria; it was like a gathering at the United Nations. In New York, the mix is less striking. It's like a gathering at Bloomingdatle's, a well-known department store. For New Yorkers, talking about other parts of the world means Brooklyn and Queens in New York. But at Mallery's, when I said that I had been to Myanmar recently, people knew where it was, while In New York people would think it was a usual club.
Answer: People have to pay cash.
[A]:
What does the writer dislike most about dinner parties in New York?