U.S. President Donald Trump on Thursday threatened tariffs on an additional $100 billion worth of Chinese goods, on top of the $50 billion in import taxes he already has proposed against Beijing. Though none of the tariffs have taken effect, it's the latest posturing in a trade dispute that some fear could escalate into a trade war. For decades, Trump has complained about China's trade practices. One of his main complaints is what he calls Beijing's theft of U.S. intellectual property. Last month, Trump cited IP theft as justification for his proposed tariffs on $50 billion in Chinese goods. China retaliated by threatening its own tariffs on the same amount of U.S. goods. Trump then escalated the dispute, saying he would consider tripling the amount of goods to which tariffs would be applied. China gains access to U.S. technology by employing several tactics, which many observers have said are unfair or illegal. Beijing has long required that U.S. businesses transfer technology to Chinese companies as a precondition of entering the Chinese market. For instance, if you are a U.S. carmaker who wants to sell automobiles to China, Beijing requires that you team up with a local Chinese company, or face steep tariffs on imported vehicles. In other cases, China requires U.S. companies to comply with localization requirements by storing sensitive data in the Chinese mainland. That increases the risk of intellectual property theft through means such as cyberattacks.It's difficult to quantify the value of technological knowledge. But according to an estimate last month by the U.S. trade representative, Chinese theft of American intellectual property costs between $225 billion and $600 billion every year. That rate is unsustainable, said top White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow. "We can't afford to give up our technology," Kudlow said Friday. "When they steal our technology ... they're stealing the guts of our American future." The Chinese government has always denied carrying out the cyberattacks that frequently... Question: At the end of this story Trump is probably: === The answer to the above question is

OPTIONS:
- complaining about Chinese trade
- not enough information
- protecting Americas future
- posturing in public

Answer: complaining about Chinese trade

Problem: OPTIONS:
- Before the project was done
- They showed no interest
- not enough information
- After the project was done
Q: Like many other inventors before him, professor Slawomir Suwak designed only the things he needed himself. He had several patents on his conscience already: an automatic cork opener for wine in the indicative state, a portable set of board games for solving personality problems, a wallet with a mini-device for the duplications of 100 zloty bills, and a piece of equipment "the day after" used to irretrievably eliminate from the time-space continuum days burdened with a hangover. Now came the time for a mini-device preventing the development of symptoms of psycho-motor aggression. The device was really simple. It weighed about a kilo and was the size of a bag of flour. It was to be worn on the right wrist. The fact it had to be the right wrist was very important. Otherwise, the invention didn't work properly, or even worse, it produced results opposite to its intended effect. Each day, its mini-containers had to be re-filled with substances promoting positive processes in the body leading to the return of good mood. There were three containers to re-fill, and the substances were not available on the local market and had to be imported using diplomatic channels from the USA. To operate the device, turning it on stand-by was enough. In that mode, it could be used continuously for one and a half hours. To recharge the batteries, you needed a charger, which was stored in a small suitcase. The device, when it was turned on, made a low murmur (or according to some - a loud growl) designed to keep the owner in a good mood. Professor Suwak called his new baby "mini-anti-aggressor." The McPhilips corporation expressed its interest in the product early on, even when it was still at the drawing-board stage. The company partially financed the purchase of sub-assembly elements from its subsidiary specializing in the productions of components for technologically advanced products. Question: The McPhillips corporation expressed interest: === The answer to the above question is
Answer: Before the project was done

input with options: 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: How does the writer feel about economists? === The answer to the above question is
OPTIONS:
- That they don't communicate effectively.
- That they communicate perfectly.
- That the communicate better than scientists.
- not enough information
output:
That they don't communicate effectively.