input with options: Read the following context and answer the question. Context: When I was 7, I played this computer game where you were "babysitting" and you had to make sure everything was safe for the kids. One of the tasks was that you were supposed to make sure the windows were closed. Well, one game I forgot to close the windows, and these super creepy, red eyes popped in the window like they were looking in at the kids. That literally has made me paranoid about people looking through my windows ever since. When I was 10, I watched an episode of CSI where some guy had a foot fetish and painted his victims toenails before murdering them. Now, something about red toenails just creep me out. I've never been able to shake that episode. When I was 11, a girl in my class told me that she had played the game "Bloody Mary" in her bathroom and explained to me what it was. Ever since then, I literally cannot be in a dark bathroom, and if something happens like the power goes out or something, I instantly close my eyes and get the hell outta there as fast as I can. When I was 15, my boyfriend wanted to take me to "see his grandpa's farm". I legit thought he was taking me to meet his grandpa. Well, turns out, he was just wanted to get me in the middle of nowhere so he could take advantage of me. After he had raped me, I felt like I was smaller than an ant. I felt absolutely trashed. I had always planned on being a virgin until I got married. But he took that from me. On the way back home, we drove over this bridge. I remember driving over this bridge thinking that I was totally worthless. Now, almost 10 years later, every time I drive over that bridge, I get horrible flashbacks and avoid it at all cost. Question: How does the girl feel about her ex boyfriend? Answer:
OPTIONS:
- The girl probably hates her boyfriend
- The girl probably resents her boyfriend.
- not enough information
- The girl is probably afraid of her ex boyfriend.
output: The girl is probably afraid of her ex boyfriend.

Q: Read the following context and answer the question. Context: Paul knew that the plan was insane and probably illegal. Certainly the stuff he'd been helping Chloe and her gang of followers do for the last few hours was technically illegal. He'd asked them why they were helping him, what did they hope to gain? They'd told him that this is what they did for fun. Chloe assured him that they "lived for this kinda shit." Ok, fine. He could sort of see that. Once he was there, helping them come up with the plan and then actually carrying it out, it sure as hell was exciting - probably the most exciting thing he'd ever done. Now that he was home and alone with his misgivings and paranoia, it all seemed like a really stupid idea. If it weren't for Chloe and her mesmerizing enthusiasm, there's no doubt that he wouldn't be doing this at all. But it was too late now. Or was it? It was five in the morning when Paul got back to his apartment. He'd told Chloe that he wanted to get a few hours sleep before the big meeting, but he now realized that there was no way he was going to be able to relax. When he'd stepped out the door twenty-two hours earlier he'd still had his job and was looking forward to a showing the rest of the art team his new designs for some of the higher-level monsters he wanted to add to the game. Screw that, he thought, they're my monsters now. I'll use them somewhere else. It could never work. How could it? Right then and there Paul decided that he was going to call the whole thing off. It wasn't too late. They hadn't done anything yet that wasn't reversible. No one had been hurt. No money had changed hands. No one had been lied to. If he called it off right now he could just move on and try and put the whole, sorry state of affairs behind him. Question: What did Paul believe it wasn't too late for? Answer:

OPTIONS:
- To talk to Chloe.
- To get his job back.
- To call the whole thing off.
- not enough information

A: To call the whole thing off.

Read the following context and answer the question. Context: It has become increasingly common for academics to use social media to communicate with wider audiences. Twitter, like many other social platforms, typically measures success in terms of numbers of followers, likes and retweets, but this only tells us something about the spreading of messages but not necessarily whether the content of the messages is understood or embraced. One way to ascertain this is through network and language analysis, which, used together, can tell us how effective the communication is. Economists tweet less, mention fewer people and have fewer conversations with strangers than a comparable group of experts in the sciences, and use less accessible language with words that are more complex, with more abbreviations and with a more distant tone. Their tweets are less personal and less inclusive than those used by scientists. This is what appeared in April 2017 when we gathered data on tens of thousands of tweets from the Twitter accounts of both the top 25 economists and 25 scientists as identified by IDEAS and Science, including the top three economists at the time, Paul Krugman, Joseph Stiglitz, and Erik Brynjolfsson and, on the other side, the top three scientists, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Brian Cox, and Richard Dawkins. At that time those accounts covered roughly two thirds of all the following. The timing is significant because 2016 has been declared the year of post-truth politics, the year in which appeals to emotions (pathos) superseded the significance of factual evidence-based information (logos), affecting people's constructions and interpretations of events. This has been accompanied by the growing prominence of political "alt" movements (e.g. UKIP, the Alt-right) and their aggressive, provocative, and populist narratives, and "fake news" leading to political shock events such as Brexit and the Trump election. The relatively low traction of economists in these public debates has been and continues to be an important issue. Does the public not trust economists? Don't they understand... Question: What is probably true about Neil deGrasse Tyson? Answer:

OPTIONS:
- He communicates better than Paul Krugman.
- not enough information
- He is an economist.
- He is a scientist.

Answer:
He communicates better than Paul Krugman.