Problem: OPTIONS:
- 10-20 years
- 10 years or less
- not enough information
- More than 20 years
Q: Read the following context and answer the question. Context: SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo Thursday pushed back against a North Korean state media report that U.S. President Donald Trump agreed during this week's Singapore summit with Kim Jong Un to gradually lift sanctions against Pyongyang, saying Trump had been very clear about the sequence of steps in the process. The official Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) said Trump offered to lift sanctions against it as relations improve, indicating a phased-in approach where concessions would be provided at various stages of the denuclearization process. Speaking at a news conference in Seoul alongside South Korean Foreign Minister Kang Kyung-hwa and Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Kono, the U.S. secretary of state said the Trump administration would not repeat the mistakes made by past presidents that rewarded Pyongyang for denuclearization promises. "When we refer to the mistakes of the past. They were providing economic and financial aid relief before the complete denuclearization had taken place. That is not going to happen. President Trump made that clear," Pompeo said. President Trump described his meeting with Kim as a resounding success and in a tweet said, "There is no longer a nuclear threat from North Korea." But the U.S.-North Korea joint declaration was vague on details, providing no clear definition on what constitutes denuclearization, set no timeline for the dismantlement process, and said nothing about outside verification requirements. Pompeo, however, pointed out that in the Singapore statement both countries reaffirmed the inter-Korean Panmunjom declaration from April, in which both South and North Korea agreed to uphold all past agreements that did specify detailed nuclear prohibitions and verification requirements. The secretary of state and his counterparts in Seoul and Tokyo said they are united in support of the U.S.-North Korea agreement, and in agreement on the goal of complete, irreversible, verifiable dismantlement of North Korea's nuclear program. After the summit,... Question: How long have North Korea and US presidents continued to meet? Answer:
Answer: More than 20 years

Problem:OPTIONS:
- Locutus' son.
- not enough information
- Locutus' brother.
- Locutus' nephew.

Read the following context and answer the question. Context: It's axiomatic that all cultures reserve a special place for food in their daily and social lives. For something as simple as a cuppa joe, we schedule and juggle our time to meet at predetermined locations to share conversation and libation. Meals require even more effort and the social ramifications increase. One is expected to show up on time, sometimes dress to certain standards and bring one or many bottles of wine as a thoughtful gift to the hosts. And of course, the food is just an excuse to get together with friends to enjoy a meal, share stories, to discuss or seduce, to seal an agreement or act as a prelude to a severance of relations (frequently unintentionally). I was first introduced to dining for pleasure as opposed to sustenance while at the University of New Brunswick. I lived in Bridges House, one of the men's residences. The young, eager, bright-eyed students in each residence were kept more or less in check by a Don. Each residence had its share of maniacs and troublemakers who were at university to get some form of education, alcohol poisoning or a social disease; sometimes all three. The Don's job was to act as a mentor and prison warden. Imagine a building housing up to 100 young adult men. It doesn't take much to start a riot. In our case, the Don was Locutus. When we met him, he must have been in his forties but looked to us adolescents to be older than Father Time. He was immediately dubbed 'Grandpa Munster'. With the tender sensitivity of males of our age, we didn't bother to hide this from him and he took it in good humour. In point of fact, Locutus was a great Don; firm when he needed to be and understanding and helpful as appropriate. You crossed this guy at your peril, but he was generally pretty tolerant. Question: Who is the author? Answer:
****
A: not enough information

input: OPTIONS:
- 2003 was a really strange time to be covering the 'new media' industry
- not enough information
- The first signs of trouble for the industry had come in 2000.
- As the century turned, so had the market. Now, answer this question: Read the following context and answer the question. Context: With regular money now coming in from the Guardian column, my regular contributions to other publications and the modest subscription revenue from The Friday Thing, I had been living something of the high life since arriving in London. I had started hanging out with the great and the good of the dot com world: attending launch parties for new sites, going to parties to celebrate them staying in business for a whole year, eating their lunches, drinking their booze and learning their secrets while they tried to convince me to write about them in my column. Many of these online entrepreneurs had become my friends and I'd managed to find myself a new girlfriend - Maggie, a Welsh journalist who was a restaurant reviewer for a food and drink website. This was a brilliant blag: it meant we could eat at some of London's best restaurants and never pay a penny. Life was wonderful: The Friday Thing and the Guardian column meant that my plan to use the Internet to become hugely famous and successful was firmly on track, I'd made lots of new friends, and, on top of all that, I was getting laid and eating gourmet food for free. Even Sam Lewis was jealous, and he was rich. Meanwhile, the people I was writing about were not having such an easy time of it. 2003 was a really strange time to be covering the 'new media' industry - mainly because no one was really sure for how long there would be an industry left to cover. The dot com boom of 1999 seemed like a millennium ago: a period in history as crazy as the tulip craze or the South Sea Bubble look to us now. The first signs of trouble for the industry had come in 2000. As the century turned, so had the market and - to use the parlance of analysts - the boom had turned out to be a bubble. And then the bubble had burst. Question: After the dot com boom when were the first signs of trouble for the industry? Answer:
A:
output:
The first signs of trouble for the industry had come in 2000.