In this task, you're given an article and an answer. Your task is to generate the question for the answer based on the given article.

[EX Q]: Article: There is a growing problem of what to do with electronic waste such as old televisions, computers, radios, cellular telephones and other electronic equipment. Electronic trash, or e-waste, is piling up faster than ever in American homes and businesses. People do not know what to do with old televisions or computers, so they throw them in the trash. National Solid Wastes Management Association (NSWMA) state programs director Chaz Miller says the large amount of electronic waste Americans produce is not unexpected. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates more than 400 million consumer electronic items are dumped each year, and there is a push by more states to ban the waste from landfills and create recycling programs. They can be torn apart and sorted for useable parts. Mike Fannon who runs the plant in Baltimore, says, "There are a lot of valuable metals that can be recovered and reused instead of just putting them in the landfill, and in certain components, there are some materials that should not really be in the landfill," Fannon explains. Fannon says nearly 20 percent of electronic waste is recycled nationwide. Thirteen years ago, it was only about 6 percent. Recycling rates continue to rise as more communities have banned electronics from landfills in an effort to keep e-waste poisons like lead and mercury out of garbage dumps. This year, several states like Vermont imposed a ban on electronic waste in landfills. More than 25 other states have also adopted landfill bans, e-waste recycling programs or both. Chaz Miller says more can be done to boost electronic waste recycling. "We can do much better," noted Miller. "I think clearly our goal should be to do as well as we do recycling newspapers."
Answer: Old newspapers.
[EX A]: Which of the following does NOT belong to e-waste?

[EX Q]: Article: Travelling abroad for leisure is becoming more and more popular for Chinese. The UK is high up in the list of places that the Chinese want to visit. There is a sense of mystery about the UK; it's often the images of England's green parks, countryside and Victorian houses that people point to as an alternative to polluted, overcrowded cities such as Beijing and Guangzhou. The capital is viewed as modern and dynamic, while being filled deep with history. When asked what other images are thought of by the UK, the reply is often "the Queen, tea and Oxbridge". So what's stopping them actually coming? Sebastian Wood ,the British ambassador in Beijing, has described the UK as a _ , and while this is perhaps an exaggeration ,Britain does have a reputation as a country that is harder to access. The main problem for Chinese tourists is obvious. Although visa applications are now completed online, visitors are still required to visit one of 12 UK centers across the country for a face-to-face interview and fingerprinting. If you don't live near one of these enters already, you'd have to travel some distance to get there. Another problem is also to be mentioned. If travelers from China visit the UK, they also want to cover as much ground as possible. But the UK is not included in the Schengen visa, which allows access to a host of 26 European countries such as France and Germany. So it makes the former seem a less worth it. There is also the issue of cost: PS47 for a Schengen visa, PS82 for the UK. On top of this, the UK is viewed as stricter in its handing of visas compared with the rest of Europe, fed by urban legends of rejected applications. In the end, the decision comes down to one question: Is Britain worth a visit?
Answer: No one needs to travel a long distance to get a center.
[EX A]: Which of the following statements is NOT true for the UK visa?

[EX Q]: Article: Move Earth--it's no science fiction LONDON--Scientists have found an unusual way to prevent our planet from overheating: move it to a cooler spot. All you have to do is send a few comets in the direction of Earth, and its orbit will be changed. Our world will then be sent spinning into a safer, colder part of the solar system. This idea for improving our climate comes from a group of US National Aeronautics and Space Administration(NASA) engineers and American astronomers. They say their plan could add another six billion years to the useful lifetime of our planet--effectively doubling its working life. The plan put forward by Dr Laughlin, and his colleagues Don Korycansky and Fred Adams is designed to carefully direct a comet or asteroid so that it passes close by our planet and sends some of its gravitational energy to Earth. "Earth's orbital speed would increase as a result and we would move to a higher orbit away from the Sun," Laughlin said. Engineers would then direct their comet so that it passed close to Jupiter or Saturn. The comet would pick up energy from one of these giant planets. Later its orbit would bring it back to Earth, and the process would be repeated. In the short term, the plan provides an ideal way to global warming, although the team was actually concerned with a much greater danger. The sun is certain to heat up in about a billion years and so "seriously _ " our biosphere by cooking us. That's why the group decided to try to save Earth. The plan has one or two worrying aspects, however. For a start, space engineers would have to be very careful about how they directed their asteroid or comet towards Earth. The smallest miscalculation in orbit could fire it straight at Earth--with deadly consequences. There is also the question of the Moon. As the current issue of Scientific American magazine points out, if Earth was pushed out of its current position, it is "most likely the Moon would be stripped away from Earth," it states. This would greatly change our planet's climate.
Answer: The moon is moving farther and farther away from Earth.
[EX A]:
What makes the scientists plan to move Earth?