input with options: Read the following context and answer the question. Context: "Hey, guy." "No, this is Ray." He smiled, leaned back in his chair. It was, of course, Pete. Pete was the night shift guy at Crossroads Detox across town. Ray called it the Jesus Shop because it was wholly supported by a contingent of local churches who saw addicts as a potential ministry. Apparently Jesus saved--not only from sin and hell, but also from Dark Eyed Jim Beam. Pete was a relatively innocuous born again fundie who volunteered his time two or three nights a week. When he was not saving the world, his Clark Kent was actually a steady CPA job with the local H&R Block. He'd been pulling shifts for about six months, knew nothing about drugs beyond that bad people used them to escape their problems and that they were tools of Satan, and he always needed Ray's advice about one thing or another. This arrangement was not problematic as Pete had long ago given up trying to convert him. Pete was also the only guy in the city who was, as Ray figured it, making less money than he was at such an hour. In return for Ray's magnanimity, Pete had done Ray's taxes for free last year. They had never actually met, though Ray had faxed him the tax forms and Pete had faxed back a photo of his two pre-teen daughters and his geriatric Lab. "What's the problem?" Ray asked. "I have a recalcitrant." That's what he called them, the drunk and definitely disorderly. Pete's vocabulary did not include the word shithead either in its singular or plural. "Pete, they're all like that. Alcohol is bad medicine. That's why places like ours are in business. To make them calcitrant." "I know that." Pete sounded a little annoyed. There was some commotion in the background, a knocking on doors. Question: Who calls the drunk and disorderly recalcitrants? Answer:
OPTIONS:
- Clark
- Ray
- Pete
- not enough information
output: Pete

Q: Read the following context and answer the question. Context: I was driving on Highway 35 on my way home from work. Up in front of me was a giant billboard advertising yet another jeweler, in ten-foot letters and bright silver watches like massive alien machines. The traffic slowed and stopped on the ramp as it bottlenecked further into the city, and my head turned to examine the sign and the blocked view of the cityscape and land beyond. Past it was another billboard, with the name of a casino as its only text, filled with collaged images of money, plush rooms, and dancers. A quarter mile further brought me to an advertisement for business management solutions. Another few hundred yards and I was urged to try the new sandwich at the new sandwich place. The sun set and the signs stayed bright as automatic light switched on. The city grew dark and the hills beyond feebled out, existing only in our minds and finally not even there. All that remained were the well-lit and shiny reminders that lawyers were standing by to take my case to court, and that somebody's air conditioners would outlast somebody else's. I had an idea. I made the call the next day. It would put me back a good half grand, but it would be worth it. There would be no design meeting; I sent them the image and it was printed. A few weeks later it went up. Now on my commute, when I paused in the crush of metal bodies, I looked up and saw mountains by Maxfield Parrish, reaching up to the clouds in impossible cragginess, rivulets and gushing streams painted down their sides, with the sun striking vibrant oranges and reds into the shadows of the rocks. There were trees in copper-patina green and still pools quieter than the middle of winter but warm as the first day of summer. No doubt people thought it was the first part of a two-stage advertising gimmick, or a filler to be used when no one was renting space on the sign. But I was happy. Question: The narrator likely: Answer:

OPTIONS:
- Hates his job
- Does not enjoy eating sandwiches after work.
- Thinks advertisements are a waste of space and money.
- not enough information

A: not enough information

Read the following context and answer the question. Context: And once again, high blood pressure is making headlines in the news: the American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology (AHA/ACC) have just released new guidelines about hypertension. Since this development is likely to cause confusion and concern for many, I'm writing this post to help you understand the debate and what this might mean for you and your family. By the way, if you've read any of my other blood pressure articles on this site, let me reassure you: I am not changing my clinical practice or what I recommend to others, based on the new AHA/ACC guidelines. The core principles of better blood pressure management for older adults remain the same: * Take care in how you and your doctors measure blood pressure (more on that here), * Start by aiming to get blood pressure less than 150/90 mm Hg, as recommended by these expert guidelines issued in 2017 and in 2014, * And then learn more about what are the likely benefits versus risks of aiming for more intensive BP control. Perhaps the most important thing to understand is this: treatment of high blood pressure in older adults offers "diminishing returns" as we treat BP to get lower and lower. Scientific evidence indicates that the greatest health benefit, when it comes to reducing the risk of strokes and heart attacks, is in getting systolic blood pressure from high (i.e. 160-180) down to moderate (140-150). From there, the famous SPRINT study, published in 2015, did show a further reduction in cardiovascular risk, when participants were treated to a lower systolic BP, such as a target of 120. However, this was in a carefully selected group of participants, it required taking three blood pressure medications on average, and the reduction in risk was small. As I note in my article explaining SPRINT Senior, in participants aged 75 or older, pushing to that lower goal was associated with an estimated 1-in-27 chance of avoiding a cardiovascular event. (The benefit was even smaller in adults aged 50-75.) Question: What issue did the author have with the AHA/ACC guidelines? Answer:

OPTIONS:
- the scientific evidence
- the cardiovascular risk
- the confusion and concern people are experiencing
- not enough information

Answer:
the confusion and concern people are experiencing