Question: Read the following context and answer the question. Context: I am currently waiting for peer reviews of two books I've worked on: one sole-authored, one co-authored. We don't talk much about the experience of waiting for reviews, and it's not something that appears to have been researched. Yet it's something everyone doing academic work has to go through and it may be bad for our mental health. I'm finding it particularly difficult at the moment because a lot rides on these reviews. The sole-authored book, which is on a contentious topic, has already had one set of reviews. Reviewer 1 was utterly damning, saying "I couldn't find anything to praise". Luckily, Reviewers 2 and 3 were more measured, offering both praise and constructive criticism, and their input helped me to revise and strengthen the typescript. However, in the process, my editor and I realised that we needed further reviews from people with a particular kind of specialist knowledge. My editor approached around ten potential reviewers, but only one agreed to do the job. So I'm gibbering what if that person agrees with Reviewer 1? The co-authored book is in a contentious format. My co-authors and I decided that I would be the person to liaise with publishers, as I have form in this process. The last time I liaised with academic publishers for a co-authored book was in the early 2000s, and I'd forgotten how heavily responsible it makes me feel. Fortunately, I've found a publisher that is interested and has sent the book out for reviews, to two professional academics and two students. This is great and terrifying but at least there are four reviewers. Even so, what if they all think it's rubbish? In many ways I love the peer review system. I welcome feedback on my writing, and I'm not at all averse to constructive criticism. I am by no means arrogant enough to think I can write a good book without input from others. Yet peer review, as a process, is fraught with uncertainty. Comments may not be constructive, or may not come at all. They may be positive, or negative, or in between, or a mixture. Question: Who did the author and their co-authors decide that they should liaise with? Answer:
OPTIONS:
- not enough information
- editors
- reviewers
- publishers
Answer: publishers

input with options: Read the following context and answer the question. Context: I have a chronic illness, and so I received quite a few sterling gems in the months between onset and accurate diagnosis. I had one GP let's call him Dr Douche. I promise, it's the kindest way I could describe him. "The jacket means I know things." He came up with wilder and wilder theories as to why I was sick, and kept getting sicker. It should be said beforehand that few of these theories were embodied. He was sure it was something in my ladybrains that was preventing proper function of the rest of me. Dr Douche said so much weird, wild, and just-plain-unbelievable crap over the course of my diagnosis that someday I may create a novel that incorporates it all. But this here has to be the blue ribbon winner. I was describing a symptom to him: every time I got up in the morning, when I first stood, my heart would pound, my heart rate would accelerate, and I'd feel dizzy. After a few probing questions (only in the morning? no, but it's worst in the morning) "Maybe," he said sensitively, "you're afraid." "Of standing?" I asked, just to be sure. "You think I'm afraid of standing up." Maybe he meant there was some kind of existential fear, like, we're all afraid, it's a big old universe out there, and he wanted some comfort and reassurance. Nope. The man genuinely thought I had such a profound fear of verticality, that I was having a near-panic in response to being upright. POTS, folks. It was POTS. Literally THE most common sign/symptom/syndrome of autonomic dysfunction. The most common one. He could've confirmed right there in the office with a poor man's tilt table test, if he knew to Mayo Clinic had to confirm with expensive instruments because he'd never heard of a disease that affects 1/100 teenagers and between 13 million people in the United States! Would've done better with this Doctor. Question: What test did Mayo Clinic use to confirm the man's diagnosis? Answer:
OPTIONS:
- tilt table
- not enough information
- expensive instrument testing
- sit up test
output: expensive instrument testing

Q: Read the following context and answer the question. Context: 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: Why does Kudlow believe the Chinese are stealing the guts of our future? Answer:

OPTIONS:
- not enough information
- they are threatening to kidnap Kudlow
- they are stealing our technology
- they are stealing our up and coming scientists

A:
they are stealing our technology