input: OPTIONS:
- She was hoping that things would get better with time.
- not enough information
- She didn't know he was lying most of the time.
- She didn't mind being treated poorly, as long as he was nice to her daughter. Now, answer this question: My mom has been married three times, (nothing against her) and the first two times ended up a total mess. My dad, the first one, ended up just being a shot gun wedding. He was abusive and too young to be married with a child. They got divorced shortly after. A couple years later she met a man named Rob. He was fun, loving, kind, great with me, everything she had been looking for. They dated for.. a few months I think? Maybe a year. Then they got married and we moved to Texas. They were married for 5 years and she was just as miserable those 5 years. He was mean, he lied about everything, he was addicted to porn and stole from his job. He was controlling and wouldn't let anyone else handle money. It was a rough house to grow up in and hard on my mom as she tried to keep me from the abuse. Eventually he cheated on her with one of her best friends and she kicked him out. I didn't even notice he was gone for a week because he was so absent in my life. He apologized, turned into the man she first met and they tried again. He again cheated on her and she left him again, that time for good. They ended up finalizing the divorce a year later. I remember her telling me that she confronted him about his change of character and he had told her "Everyone puts on an act at first." As if it was a normal thing. He had depression and I believe he wanted everyone to be just as miserable as he was. After they got divorced he had on and off again relationships, got a girl pregnant and got married, then she divorced him. He lived with his cousin for a while. The only stability he ever had was with my mom and I. I think that's why he wanted to leave. Stability meant he had to become an adult and he didn't want to have to take responsibility. According to the above context, answer the following question. Why did the mother probably continue to stay married to Rob for so long?
A:
output: She was hoping that things would get better with time.

Paul Reynolds crisscrossed his sketchbook with furious strokes, filling the pages with images of the vengeance he would take on his former coworkers at Fear and Loading Games. He'd founded the company three years back and, just a few hours ago, his partners and erstwhile friends had fired him without cause or warning. He concentrated hard as his pen brought to life demonic figures from one of the best-selling comics he'd created, scythe wielding cyber-men called Myrmidons who tore into surprised computer programmers with fangs and claws. Elsewhere on the page, computers assembled themselves into 21st century Golems, rising up against traitorous CEO's and producers to crush them to bloody pulp as they cowered beneath their desks. Sitting at the bar in Senor Goldstein's Mexican Restaurant in San Jose, California, Paul's own artwork engaged him for the first time in months, maybe years. Under other circumstances, that would have made him happy. But today's circumstances allowed only two emotions: despair and a burning desire for revenge. Not wanting to succumb to the former, and not quite wanting to find a gun and go back to the office, he instead drew. He had turned to a fresh page and begun to sketch his most elaborate revenge-scheme yet when a woman walked into his line of vision. There were four or five other women in the restaurant already (most of them employees), but this one stood out. This one would've stood out anywhere. Her hair, cut short and spiky, was dyed a magenta so bright it nearly glowed. She wore a tight black t-shirt, baggy olive drab shorts that hung on shapely hips, and heavy black boots with two inch thick soles. She had a faded black messenger bag slung across her chest, the strap pressing between her breasts. If Paul had to guess, she wasn't wearing a bra. She definitely wasn't your average Silicon Valley techie on an early lunch break, and certainly not a restaurant employee. According to the above context, answer the following question. How long was Paul probably in the restaurant for?

OPTIONS:
- Ten minutes
- An hour
- not enough information
- Six hours

Answer: An hour

U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis on Saturday slammed China's militarization of disputed South China Sea islands, insisting that weapons systems recently deployed in the area were meant to intimidate and coerce Beijing's neighbors. The comments came during a speech at the Shangri-La Dialogue, an annual Asian defense forum in Singapore. In the speech, Mattis laid out the broader U.S. strategy for a "free and open" Indo-Pacific region. "China's policy in the South China Sea stands in stark contrast to the openness our strategy promotes. It calls into question China's broader goals," Mattis said. Specifically, the Pentagon chief mentioned China's deployment of anti-ship and surface-to-air missiles, electronic jammers, and the landing of a bomber aircraft at the Paracel Islands off the coast of Vietnam. "Despite China's claim to the contrary, the placement of these weapon systems is tied directly to military use for the purposes of intimidation and coercion," Mattis added. Though much of the world is focused on an upcoming summit between North Korea and the United States, this year's Shangri-La Dialogue has focused primarily on the region's long-term future and how to deal with a more assertive China. Beijing has begun projecting power beyond its borders, most notably through the construction and militarization of islands in disputed areas of the South China Sea. China claims nearly the entire South China Sea, despite overlapping claims by countries including Vietnam, the Philippines, Brunei, Malaysia and Taiwan. Last week, the United States disinvited China from the Rim of the Pacific exercise (RIMPAC), a major international maritime exercise to be held later this year, citing Beijing's behavior in the South China Sea. Mattis on Saturday referred to that disinvitation as an "initial response" to China, but he did not outline any additional steps that might be taken. "The U.S. will continue to pursue a constructive, results-oriented relationship with China, cooperating when possible and competing vigorously where... According to the above context, answer the following question. What made Jim Mattis want to slam China?
OPTIONS:
- because of their breaking trade agreements
- not enough information
- because of their law against more than one child
- because of their militarization of the South China Sea

Answer:
because of their militarization of the South China Sea