input with options: U.S. House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senator Lindsey Graham have joined a growing chorus of Republican leaders to disavow comments by presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump about the Mexican heritage of a judge in a class-action lawsuit against Trump University. Questioned Tuesday about Trump's comments, Ryan said "I regret those comments he made. Claiming a person can't do their job because of their race is sort of like the textbook definition of racism." But he did not retract his endorsement of Trump, made last week, and he said he does not believe Democratic challenger Hillary Clinton is "the answer." Ryan made his comments during an appearance at a women's shelter in Washington, D.C. In a New York Times interview, Graham, also a former presidential candidate, said Trump's remarks were "the most un-American thing from a politician since Joe McCarthy," referring to the ultra-conservative senator of the 1950s who fueled fears of widespread communist subversion in the United States. Graham also suggested that Republicans who have endorsed Trump reconsider their choice. "If anybody was looking for an off-ramp, this is probably it," he said. The backlash appears to be mounting against the candidate, who has repeatedly said he believes U.S. District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel, because of his "Mexican heritage," would not rule fairly in the case charging Trump with fraud. Curiel is an American who was born and raised in the Midwestern U.S. state of Indiana. U.S. Senator Ben Sasse, a Republican from Nebraska who has criticized Trump on multiple occasions during the campaign, tweeted: "Saying someone can't do a specific job because of his or her race is the literal definition of 'racism.''' Sasse was joined Monday by two former rivals for the Republican nomination. Ohio Governor John Kasich tweeted that Trump's offensive "is flat out wrong.'' Trump, Kasich wrote, should "apologize to Judge Curiel & try to unite this country.'' Question: After the end of this story, Trump apologized for: === The answer to the above question is
OPTIONS:
- not thinking while he was talking
- making a true statement
- not enough information
- making a racist remark
output: making a racist remark

Q: One student started packing up at the beginning of a lab exercise. I asked him where he was going. He said "I'm going to fail this class anyway, so I have other things to do." It was true that he wasn't doing well, and we had addressed this previously, but his attitude was completely defeatist. He had given up. So, there, in the middle of class, before he could get away, I said "Well, yeah. You will certainly fail if you don't even try. I thought you were graduating at the end of this semester." "I'm supposed to, but I won't, because I'm going to fail physics. All I need is a D." (He was right; his major didn't require knowing any physics but they put it in the curriculum as a kind of gatekeeper course. Most students took physics much earlier in their studies than he did.) "If you have already decided to fail, I can't stop you; you're an adult. But you can make an appointment with me anytime. You already know that. You can email me. It's my job to help you understand, but you have to come to me. You are an adult. It would be very inappropriate of me to follow you around, inviting you to office hours. And you must do the homework and the labs." He stayed for the lab. I notified his counselor about what was going on, and she called him in and said the same things that I said. Next class he moved from the seat at the edge of my peripheral vision, to the middle, started working his ass off, and he passed. For a while I thought he was closing in on a C, but he got his D and graduated. And I didn't give him anymore of a grading break than I give any of my students. Question: After the end of this narration, the student is probably: === The answer to the above question is

OPTIONS:
- A gatekeeper
- A defeatist
- not enough information
- A graduate

A: A graduate

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi offered a thinly veiled criticism of China, even while insisting on closer relations with Beijing, during a speech Friday in Singapore. Speaking at the annual Shangri-La Dialogue defense conference, Modi called for the Indo-Pacific region to embrace freedom of navigation, territorial integrity, and respect for all nations, regardless of their size. "We will promote a democratic and rules-based international order in which all nations, small and large, count as equal and sovereign," the Indian prime minister said. "We will work with others to keep our seas, space and airways free and open." While those comments did not specifically mention China, Modi's remarks are seen as a reference to Beijing's increasingly assertive behavior toward its smaller neighbors in disputed areas of the South China Sea. Modi also implicitly criticized the United States. He slammed growing protectionism, presumably a reference to recent tariffs imposed by U.S. President Donald Trump. He also said nations should keep their commitments a possible reference to Trump's decision to pull out of the Iran nuclear deal. India has grown close with the U.S., especially as China projects its growing military power beyond its shores. The U.S.-India relationship, Modi said, "has resumed new significance in the changing world." An important aspect of that partnership is "a shared vision of an open, stable, secure and prosperous Indo-Pacific," he added. For decades, India has embraced a non-aligned status, which means it does not choose sides between world powers. In keeping with that position, Modi warned against a "return to great power rivalries." The Indian prime minister also insisted that "Asia and the world will have a better future when India and China work together in trust and confidence, sensitive to each other's interests." India is the world's largest democracy. It has the world's seventh-largest economy. Within a decade, it is expected to pass China to become the world's most populous country. Question: what does Modi think about leaders keeping commitments? === The answer to the above question is

OPTIONS:
- not enough information
- Modi thinks leaders should be firm in their commitments
- Modi thinks leaders can change their minds
- Modi thinks leaders need to be flexible with their opinions and ideas

Answer:
Modi thinks leaders should be firm in their commitments