input with options: Read the following context and answer the question. Context: I'm going to take something that happened to my daughter for this answer. Billie Jo (our daughter) was probably around ten years old when it happened. We had a young Black Labrador dog who had become quite smitten with chewing things up that she wasn't supposed to. The list grew longer as the months passed. Looker, our black lab, had chewed up and eaten a $10 bill, my VCR remote control (probably around 1987), and a sticker-filled blackberry vine my wife had planted. How she did that one without serious repercussions is beyond me. She also had a habit of grabbing the mail as it slid through the slot that was in our front door, taking it out back and 'sorting' it for us. So what happened really came as no big surprise. My daughter was a very diligent student, never wanting to let down her teachers by not turning her homework in as soon as she got to school (at least until she hit 14). One morning our daughter was trying to find the math homework that she knew she had completed the night before. My wife assisted in the search and soon found a partially chewed up piece of our daughter's homework page. Our daughter was devastated! How could she possibly walk in to school and publicly announce, "My dog ate my homework!" without becoming the laughing stock of the school? Like this: Mama Bear (my wife) storms into the classroom and vehemently upholds our daughter's "dog ate my homework" bit, showing the teacher the half eaten paper. Funny thing was, the teacher would have never doubted our little girl for one minute. Back then, Billie Jo was the sweetest, cutest, most polite and well mannered child a parent could possibly hope for. And her teachers loved her. So, if you have partial proof, it can be a valid excuse. Question: Who had completed her homework Answer:
OPTIONS:
- not enough information
- Billie Jo
- Mama Bear
- The dog
output: Billie Jo

Q: Read the following context and answer the question. Context: The U.S. State Department has asked American embassies and consulates around the world to identify certain groups that should get extra scrutiny when they apply for visas. A series of directives also instructs U.S. diplomatic posts overseas to review the social media accounts of visa applicants who are suspected of terrorist ties or of having been in Islamic State group-controlled areas. The diplomatic cables sent by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson directed embassies to convene security and intelligence working groups to determine criteria for "population sets" that would warrant increased scrutiny before traveling to the U.S. Even if the applicant otherwise qualifies for a visa, those identified as meeting the criteria would require additional scrutiny, leading to a possible visa denial. It is the first evidence of a plan for the "extreme vetting" of foreigners entering the United States that President Donald Trump promised during his campaign. The four cables sent between March 10 and March 17 do not define which groups would be considered among the "population sets" requiring more scrutiny. But in the first glimpse into what "extreme vetting" may look like under the Trump administration, one of Tillerson's memos would have added to the interview process questions about an applicant's workplaces, employers, addresses and travel history going back 15 years, as well as all email addresses and social media handles used in the last five years. The questions were withdrawn in a following memo, pending approval of the list by another federal agency. The directives, first reported by Reuters, quickly drew criticism from rights groups and others who've accused Trump of discriminating against Muslims through his now-suspended ban on travelers from six predominantly Muslim countries Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. "These measures could provide license for discrimination based on national origin and religion,'' human rights group Amnesty International wrote in a letter to Tillerson on Thursday. "They... Question: What is probably true of Tillerson? Answer:

OPTIONS:
- He has the country's best interest at heart
- not enough information
- He is not worried about terrorism
- He wants to protect the US

A: He wants to protect the US

Read the following context and answer the question. Context: QUEBEC CITY Emotions were on display when U.S. President Donald Trump met other G-7 leaders at their annual summit in Canada on Friday, but the discussions were civilized and diplomatic, according to sources. Trump held firm on asserting the United States is disadvantaged when it comes to trade with its European allies. "The other leaders presented their numbers and Trump presented his," a G-7 official who spoke on condition of anonymity told the Reuters news agency. "As expected he did not budge. This is probably not because he does not understand, but because of domestic reasons." At a bilateral meeting later with the summit's host, Justin Trudeau, the U.S. president joked that the Canadian prime minister had agreed to "cut all tariffs." Despite the two leaders exchanging criticism of each other's trade policies the previous day, Trump described the cross-border relationship as very good, stating "we're actually working on cutting tariffs and making it all very fair for both countries. And we've made a lot of progress today. We'll see how it all works out." In a subsequent sit-down meeting with French President Emmanuel Macron, Trump said "the United States has had a very big trade deficit for many years with the European Union and we are working it out. And Emmanuel's been very helpful in that regard." Macron responded that he had a "very direct and open discussion" with Trump and "there is a critical path that is a way to progress all together." Canada's foreign minister, Chrystia Freeland, confirms she met on Friday with U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer to discuss the tariffs and the fate of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). She said Canada, however, will not change its mind about the U.S. steel and aluminum tariffs which she termed "illegal." Trump imposed the tariffs on the grounds that weak domestic industries could affect U.S. national security. America's closest allies, Canada, Mexico and the European Union, are introducing retaliatory tariffs. Question: How long was the meeting between Trudeau and Trump? Answer:

OPTIONS:
- A few hours
- not enough information
- 3 weeks long
- 2 weeks long

Answer:
A few hours