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.

[EX Q]: Article: When policy experts debate climate change solutions, they often talk about "a price on carbon." They are arguing about whether companies should pay when they put carbon pollution in the air. Proponents say that it's simple economics -- if it's free to pollute, you'll get a lot of pollution. Opponents claim it will raise the cost of energy that's produced from high carbon sources, like coal. But here's the secret that most people seem to be missing: There already is a price on carbon, and it's paid by the taxpayers. Carbon pollution, like every other form of pollution, has an impact on the environment. Throwing waste into a river will cause the fish to die and the people who drink the water to get sick. And when you produce carbon pollution, you get climate change -- sea level rise, stronger storms, severe droughts, damage to agriculture, and more. All of those impacts cost money. Insurance rates go up when storms get more destructive. Taxes increase when cities have to rebuild bridges and roads. Military budgets go up when droughts and population changes cause conflicts. Not to mention impacts on agriculture and health care costs. In other words, the price on carbon is what we all pay when there is no market force to limit the pollution that causes climate change. So the debate is really about who will pay that price -- the companies who are making a profit from the fossil fuels, or the taxpayers who pick up the cost now? Right now, we have private profit and public cost. It's just like if we allowed every business to throw its garbage in the street because it's too expensive to have it moved away properly. Does it add a little bit to your dinner check to require that restaurants dispose of their trash properly? Sure. But it would be more expensive for you if the city had to clean the streets of their garbage every day. So just like we put a "price on garbage" we need a "price on carbon pollution." Now, a "price on carbon pollution" can mean a lot of things. You could tax companies based on the amount of carbon pollution they produce, and return the money to taxpayers. You could put a limit on how much they can produce, thereby requiring them to invest in ways to conduct business in a less polluting way.
Answer: Whether the companies should pay for it.
[EX A]: What do the policy experts argue about carbon pollution?

[EX Q]: Article: My 11-year-old son and I rides bikes to and from his school every day. I accompany him on the 20-minute ride through Manhattan, drop him off and return at the end of day to pick him up. We always ride together; sometimes he leads; sometimes I do. And as we ride, we communicate the ways to minimize the dangers: Don't go too fast, and watch out for doors suddenly swinging out from parked cars and jaywalking pedestrians, etc. Some friends worry about the risk of riding in traffic, but is there a better way to let my son know how to deal with traffic dangers? But recently he requested me to start hanging back a half block or so. This way he could enjoy the feeling of riding on his own, with the security of knowing that I was nearby in case he needed me. This is healthy, of course, as my son needs space to develop independence in preparation for his inevitable (,) departure from home. However, that means soon he will want to ride to school on his own, and I will no longer have this wonderful routine. "Let your children go if you want to keep them." I understand this and am trying to let my son go in age-appropriate phases, but I still suffer. It's one of the most troubling experiences of parenthood -- recognizing that your presence is becoming less welcome. My dilemma as a husband mirrors the concern I feel as a parent. My wife has just left on a six-month mission to cover the situation in Libya. In the days leading up to her departure, we spoke openly about the possibility, however unlikely, that she might be killed. But while I influence her decisions, I do not control them. Finally, it was her decision. I know that letting go is the wisest path in this case too. As we travel through life's phases, we must let go of so much. And I don't think it gets easier with practice. But maybe just accepting that eventually we will have to let go is the secret to living a full life.
Answer: To teach his son to ride in traffic.
[EX A]: Why does the writer accompany his son on his daily ride to school?

[EX Q]: Article: A family living in an apartment house in the suburbs of a large city had a cat of which they were very much fond. One day the cat got sick and finally dies. As there was no back yard to their home in which to bury the cat. Father was forced to wrap the cat up in a newspaper and take it with him, being carefully reminded by Mother to throw the package from the train window when on the way to his work. Father placed his bag upon the package shelf over his seat, but started to have a conversation with a traveler and forgot to throw the bag out of the window. He took the package on to his office, thinking that he would deal with it on his way home that evening. But again he got to talking to someone on the train, forgot about the cat, and still had the package under his arm when he arrived home. His wife scolded him about it and Father promised to take care of the matter the next day. But once more his memory failed him. When for the third time he arrived home still carrying the package, the poor Mother became quite angry. "You've got to deal with that cat right now," she said. "Put it in the stove right now as the fireman is seldom there at this hour." Well, Father decided perhaps he'd better take it to the room and put it in the stove, but as he lifted the bag from a table, it fell open, and to their surprise there was a boiled ham! (2,6)
Answer: The family except the mother liked the cat very much.
[EX A]:
Which of the following sentences is true?