Question: I picked up this Sporf in Amsterdam Schipol airport. A spork I'd seen before, but the addition of a simple serration on the side of the fork end makes this a genuine "three-in-one" implement for eating one's full three-course takeaway meal on the plane. The sporf is no innovation; back in 1940 the "sporf" was born. It took me until 2015 to notice this one thanks to its rather pleasant design. The sporf is a little like most strategy documents that I come across. It is one implement designed to serve a multitude of goals, but with one fatal flaw: you can only ever use one part of the sporf / strategy at any one time. With the sporf, things would get messy trying to use the spoon and knife and the same time. The knife and fork work quite well in sequence but physics prevents me using both at the same time as I can with the older technologies of knife and fork. In strategy formation, we can develop a multitude of potential purposes within one document, killer vision statement or mission. But it's important to recognise that the teams around us will only ever be able to do one thing really well at any one time. This is a lesson oft ignored by schools, in particular, as they attempt to ask educators to create an ever-more creative curriculum without having first tackled attitudes towards summative assessments throughout the year. It is also a challenge in some of the world's most successful, but now stagnating, big businesses: they've spent decades or centuries building a reputation across a large array of devices, technologies, components or clothing, but the real strategy is working out which of the current array needs killed off to enable teams in their quest to develop something totally new, properly innovative. According to the above context, answer the following question. What did the narrator compare the sporf to?
OPTIONS:
- A knife
- Most strategy documents
- not enough information
- A fork
Answer: Most strategy documents

input with options: WASHINGTON Legal experts cast doubt Tuesday on a list of questions the special counsel purportedly wants to ask President Donald Trump, saying they would expect the veteran prosecutor to ask more and more pointed questions. The New York Times published the list of 44 questions it said special counsel Robert Mueller plans to pose to Trump as part of his investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. The newspaper reported that the list was compiled by Trump's lawyers based on questions that were read to them by special counsel investigators. The largely open-ended questions range from queries about Trump's firing of former national security adviser Michael Flynn and former FBI director James Comey, to general inquiries into what Trump knew about alleged coordination between his 2016 presidential campaign and Russia. While the list reflects the general line of questioning the special counsel's investigation is believed to be focused on, legal experts said the questions published are not what Mueller or any prosecutor for that matter would ask an interview subject. "It doesn't sound like questions that a prosecutor would typically ask, unless it was just a very general information-gathering type of inquiry, and they'd not limit themselves to only those question and reserve the right to ask follow-up questions," said Eric Jaso, a partner at the Spiro Harrison law firm who served as an associate independent counsel during the Whitewater investigation of former President Bill Clinton. The questions, Jaso said, were likely written by Trump's own lawyers, based on a conversation with the special counsel about topics he wants to query. "If Mr. Mueller is going to interview the president, I suspect that he's going to ask rather pointed questions rather than having questions that would allow the president to basically give a narrative and potentially go far afield from the topics that they're trying to focus on," Jaso said. Paul Rosenzweig, an adjunct professor at the George Washington School of Law... According to the above context, answer the following question. Who will ask pointed questions?
OPTIONS:
- Robert Mueller
- Spiro Harrison
- Paul Rozenzwieg
- not enough information
output: Robert Mueller

Q: SEOUL North Korea's sudden threat to pull out of the upcoming summit with the U.S. raises new doubts of whether a denuclearization deal is possible. North Korean leader Kim Jong Un agreed to meet with U.S President Donald Trump in Singapore on June 12 to work out an agreement to end the North's nuclear program in exchange for security guarantees and an end to punishing international sanctions. But on Wednesday North Korea's Vice Foreign Minister Kim Kye Kwan released a statement through the state-run KCNA news agency that criticized "unbridled remarks" made specifically by the U.S. president's National Security Adviser John Bolton demanding that Pyongyang completely decommission its entire nuclear arsenal, along with its ballistic missile program and chemical weapons stockpile, before receiving any compensation or concessions. He expressed "indignation" at the U.S uncompromising position and said North Korea might pull out of the Trump-Kim summit, unless the Trump administration acts with "sincerity" to improve relations through dialogue. "If the United States is trying to drive us into a corner to force our unilateral nuclear abandonment, we will no longer be interested in such dialogue and cannot but reconsider our proceeding to the North Korea-U.S. summit," the statement said. The vice foreign minister also said it was "absolutely absurd" that Bolton would compare Libya's experience dismantling its relatively rudimentary nuclear program as a model for dealing with the North's more advanced and expansive capabilities. He also denounced the Trump administration for "miscalculating the magnanimity" of Kim Jong Un's decision to suspend further nuclear and missile tests, and his willingness to engage in nuclear talks, as "signs of weakness," that were the result of what the U.S. administration has dubbed its "maximum pressure" campaign that led international efforts to impose punishing sanctions banning 90% of North Korean trade. The vice minister's remarks came shortly after the North abruptly canceled... According to the above context, answer the following question. What did Kwan think of Bolton's comments?

OPTIONS:
- He thought they would put an end to the summit
- He was very upset
- not enough information
- He thinks they are a sign of weakness

A: not enough information

Q: The U.S. Supreme Court plunged into the politically messy issue of redrawing congressional and legislative districts Tuesday, in a case that could have profound implications for both major political parties for years to come. The high court heard oral arguments in a case brought by Democratic voters in Wisconsin. They argued that a Republican redistricting plan for the state assembly was so overtly partisan that it violated constitutional protections of freedom of speech and equal protection under the law for Wisconsin voters. A lower federal court sided with the challengers last year and against Republican state officials in Wisconsin. Officials argued Tuesday that they had not violated any constitutional rights when they drew up new boundaries for state assembly districts. "Our legislature followed traditional redistricting criteria, which is what they have been required to do and we think they followed that and that the justices will agree," Wisconsin Attorney General Brad Schimel told reporters in front of the court following the oral arguments. The process of state legislatures redrawing congressional and legislative district boundaries has been enmeshed in politics for two centuries. Early on, the process was referred to as "gerrymandering," where one party or the other tries to gain an electoral advantage by redrawing district boundaries to maximize their voting clout. Republicans have had success in several states in redrawing congressional and legislative voting districts and that has helped them maintain their majority in the House of Representatives. Democrats have come under fire as well for partisan maps in states where they control the legislature, like Maryland and Massachusetts. During Tuesday's oral arguments, the more liberal high court justices seemed open to the case brought by Democratic voters. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said a ruling in favor of the Republican districting plan in Wisconsin would encourage others to stack the deck against their political opponents. "What becomes of the... According to the above context, answer the following question. After the end of the story, the attorney general probably thinks

OPTIONS:
- no redistricting was warranted
- not enough information
- partial redistricting was warranted
- redistricting was warranted

A:
redistricting was warranted