Problem: OPTIONS:
- to provide more in taxes to the US
- to punish chinese companies that steal US tech
- to give the chinese companies more of an opportunity in the US
- not enough information
Q: Randy Poskin, a soybean farmer in rural Illinois, voted for Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election. But ask him now he feels about that decision, and you get a tepid response. "I'm not sure," Poskin said. Like many farmers in the Midwest, Poskin is concerned about getting caught in the middle of a trade war, as Trump ramps up economic pressure on China. Those fears were heightened after Trump announced plans Thursday to impose tariffs on as much as $60 billion worth of Chinese imports. "I'm fearful they will retaliate on those tariffs," Poskin said. "Soybean exports, wheat, poultry, chicken, beef [there are] any number of products that we export to their country that they could retaliate with." The announcement has unnerved many in Trump's base of supporters in U.S. agriculture. The trade tensions have also rattled global markets, which until recently had performed strongly. Trump's tariff decision was meant to punish Chinese companies that benefit from unfair access to U.S. technology. U.S. businesses have long bristled at Beijing's requirement that they transfer technology to Chinese companies as a condition of entering the Chinese market. U.S. businesses have also had their technology stolen through cyberattacks. "We have a tremendous intellectual property theft situation going on," Trump said during the signing ceremony Thursday. Some U.S. companies in China cheered the move and suggested that concerns about a trade war were overblown. William Zarit, chairman of the American Chamber of Commerce in China, dismissed the "hair on fire" concern that Trump's proposed moves would hurt the global economy. "That the U.S. is willing to risk these disruptions indicates how serious the U.S. administration finds China's forced technology transfer, cybertheft and discriminatory industrial policies," he said in a statement to VOA. Zarit pointed to a recent survey suggesting members of his organization wanted the White House to "advocate more strongly for a level playing field and for reciprocal treatment to... Question: Why were the tariffs enacted === The answer to the above question is
Answer: to punish chinese companies that steal US tech

Problem:OPTIONS:
- the author thinks it is perfect
- not enough information
- the author thinks it has flaws
- the author thinks it is difficult to interpret

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: What does the author think about the PURE study? === The answer to the above question is
****
A: the author thinks it has flaws

input: OPTIONS:
- 2700
- 2500000
- 10
- not enough information Now, answer this question: At an early meeting of the British Sociological Association's "Activism in Sociology Forum" members met to discuss how we might play a more campaigning role in the world outside the academy. Pragmatically, academics tend to work long hours. We are faced with multiple and competing demands: teaching, administration, publishing, marketing, research, grant-bidding, and so on. The REF has ramped up the requirement to demonstrate the efficacy of our research in "the real world" (our impact upon society, economy, and culture rather than upon knowledge per se, or upon the academic discipline). Maybe here I suggested, as my contribution to the meeting was a chance for those of us interested in progressing social justice to lever officially sanctioned space, in our busy day-to-day lives, to do more of this sort of work? Maybe we should welcome the REF impact agenda? I learned afterwards that eminent British sociologists, whom I respect enormously, regarded such a viewpoint as "naive" and "embarrassing". Indeed, critics interpret REF as just one mode of the heightened, neoliberal, managerial control that is degrading academic life and infesting universities. So, how should we think about the REF impact agenda? Because of its obvious connections with social improvement and reform through policy action, social policy is regarded as one disciplinary area that is well-placed to meet and benefit from the impact agenda. Yet there has been surprisingly little concerted discussion amongst scholars about REF and impact. This is despite the fact that many millions of pounds of public funding accrue to the proposed or claimed impact of research (with monies channelled through research councils to individual projects or via regular, six-yearly centralised assessments of the quality of research in university departments). In addition, there is substantial funding directed toward the "impact industry"; the consultants, think tanks, PR firms, funding schemes, new software programmes, impact managers, specialist impact case study... Question: How many members does the British Sociological Association have? === The answer to the above question is
A:
output:
2700