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: EUROPE is home to a variety of cultural treasures. Lonely Planet has offered pairs of cities for culture-hungry but time-poor travelers. London and Paris It takes you about two hours to travel from London to Paris by Eurostar, a high-speed railway service. The two capital cities have been competing in fashion, art and nightlife for decades--but each secretly looks up to the other. No one can doubt the grand and impressive beauty of Paris' Louvre Museum, but if you want to save money, you cannot skip the British Museum free to visit. Compared with London, Paris has more outdoor attractions, such as the beautiful green walkway La Promenade Plantee. In Paris, you'll see diners linger over red wine. While in London, you can try some afternoon tea, eat fish and chips or salted cake. Vienna and Bratislava Austrian capital Vienna and Slovakia city Bratislava are an hour apart by train. But since they are linked by the Danube River, the best way to travel is by ship. A tour of the two cities is the perfect way to experience everything from 17thcentury's Habsburg dynasty splendor to sci-fi restaurants. Vienna is famous for Mozart and imperial palaces. You can appreciate the perfect blending of architecture and nature in the grand Scholoss Schonbrunn Palace, and reward yourself with a cup of Vienna coffee, which has made its way to the world's cultural heritage list. Bratislava is best known for its fine dining--the remarkable UFO restaurant. You can enjoy a meat-laden dinner here in an amazing setting.
Answer: They admire each other.
[EX A]: What's the relationship between London and Paris according to the text?

[EX Q]: Article: I don't want to talk about being a woman scientist again. There was a time in my life when people asked constantly for stories about what it's like to work in a field dominated (controlled) by men. I was never very good at telling those stories because truthfully I never found them interesting. What I do find interesting is the origin of the universe, the shape of space, time and the nature of black holes. At 19, when I began studying astrophysics , it did not bother me in the least to be the only woman in the classroom. But while earning my Ph.D. at MIT and then as a post-doctor doing space research, the issue started to bother me. My every achievement--jobs, research papers, awards--was viewed through the lens of gender politics. So were my failures. Sometimes, when I was pushed into an argument on left brain versus right brain, or nature versus nurture , I would instantly fight fiercely on my behalf and all womankind. Then one day a few years ago, out of my mouth came a sentence that would eventually become my reply to any and all provocations : I don't talk about that anymore. It took me 10 years to get back the confidence I had at 19 and to realize that I didn't want to deal with gender issues. Why should curing sexism be yet another terrible burden on every female scientist? After all, I don't study sociology or political theory. Today I research and teach at Barnard, a women's college in New York City. Recently, someone asked me how many of the 45 students in my class were women. You cannot imagine my satisfaction at being able to answer, 45. I know some of my students worry how they will manage their scientific research and a desire for children. And I don't dismiss those concerns. Still, I don't tell them "war" stories. Instead, I have given them this: the visual of their physics professor heavily pregnant doing physics experiments. And in turn they have given me the image of 45 women driven by a love of science. And that's a sight worth talking about.
Answer: She is fed up with the issue of gender discrimination .
[EX A]: Why doesn't the author want to talk about being a woman scientist again?

[EX Q]: Article: Recently a committee of the National Academy of Sciences inprefix = st1 /Washingtonreleased a report .It confirmed that world temperatures increased about six-tenths of a degree Celsius in the last one hundred years. The report also confirmed evidence that the level of carbon dioxide in increasing. The best information about climate in the past comes from tests of ice many kilometers deep in Antarctica and Greenland .These tests show that levels of carbon dioxide today are the highest ever measured .These findings have led scientists to believe that carbon dioxide is a major cause of climate warming. Carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere when fuel is burned. Oil ,coal and wood are all fuels that release the gas .When biological waste breaks down ,it also releases carbon dioxide. However ,plants use carbon dioxide in the process called photosynthesis. This process provides food for almost all life on Earth. Some groups that support burning oil and coal want to increase the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere . They oppose international efforts to control carbon dioxide. Some scientists believe that forests and trees are able to capture large amounts of carbon dioxide from the air. Some groups even suggest that an increase in carbon dioxide could cause plants to grow faster. A recent study inNorth Carolinafound that more carbon dioxide in the air could cause trees to grow faster .But the researchers found the effect appears to last for only three years. Another study showed that much of the carbon dioxide that is taken in by trees in released within three years. The study noted that leaves released carbon dioxide when they fall from trees and break down in the soil. Plants also naturally release carbon dioxide through the process of respiration.
Answer: Soil
[EX A]:
Which one is NOT mentioned in this passage that can be the source of carbon dioxide?