This task involves annotating the answer type to a given question that involve some kind of complex reasoning (including numerical reasoning). Note that the questions require looking at more than one part of the passage to answer. There are 3 possible answer types (i) spans, (ii) numbers and (iii) dates. If the answer can be found in the passage, label it as "span". If the answer is a number, label as "number". Similarly, label "date" if you think the answer to the given question is a date.

[Q]: Passage: At the beginning of 1664, the Imperial Army was divided into three corps: In the south, 17,000 Hungarian-Croatian troops under the command of Nikola Zrinski. In the center, the main army of Montecuccoli, which was 28,500 men strong, and in the north some 8,500 men under General Jean-Louis Raduit de Souches. There were some 12,500 men in reserve to defend the fortresses. This army of 66,500 men was not united, as the differences of opinion between the commanders were very strong, especially with Zrinski. As a preparation for campaigns planned for 1664, Zrinski set out to destroy the strongly fortified Ottoman bridge bridge) which, since 1566, had linked Darda to Osijek across the Drava and the marshes of Baranya. Destruction of the bridge would cut off the retreat of the Ottoman Army and make any Turkish reinforcement impossible for several months. Re-capturing strong fortresses on his way, Zrinski advanced 240 kilometers on enemy territory and destroyed the bridge on February 1, 1664. He didn't succeed in conquering Nagykanizsa, the main objective. The siege had to be lifted when in June the main army of Koprulu approached. The Turks besieged and conquered Zrinski's stronghold Novi Zrin, which had to be abandoned when Montecuccoli refused to come to its rescue. Zrinski would never forgive this, which would eventually lead to the Magnate conspiracy in Croatia, and "Wesselenyi conspiracy" in Hungary).
Question: Which happened later, the destruction of the Ottoman bridge or the Magnate conspiracy in Croatia?
[A]: span

[Q]: Passage: Although the putsch has been named after Wolfgang Kapp, a 62-year-old nationalist East Prussian civil servant, who had been planning a coup against the republic for a while, it was instigated by the military; Kapp played a supporting role.:217:50 On 29 February 1920, the Defence Minister Noske ordered the disbandment of two of the most powerful Freikorps, the Marinebrigade Loewenfeld and Marinebrigade Ehrhardt. The latter numbered from 5,000-6,000 men and had been stationed at the Truppenubungsplatz Doberitz, near Berlin, since January 1920.:217 An elite force, it had been created from former Imperial Navy officers and NCOs, boosted later by Baltikumer . During the civil war in 1919, the brigade had seen action in Munich and Berlin. It was extremely opposed to the democratic government of Friedrich Ebert.:217 Its commander, Korvettenkapitan Hermann Ehrhardt, declared that the unit would refuse its dissolution.:51 On 1 March, it staged a parade without inviting Noske.:218 General Walther von Luttwitz, in command of all the regular troops in and around Berlin , the highest ranking general in the army at the time and in command of many Freikorps, said at the parade that he would "not accept" the loss of such an important unit. Several of Luttwitz' officers were horrified at this open rejection of the government's authority and tried to mediate, by setting up a meeting between Luttwitz and the leaders of the two major right-wing parties. Luttwitz listened to and remembered their ideas but was not dissuaded from his course of action.:218 Noske then removed the Marinebrigade from Luttwitz' command and assigned it to the leadership of the Navy, hoping that they would disband the unit. Luttwitz ignored the order but agreed to a meeting with President Ebert, suggested by his staff.
Question: Who was not invited to the parade on 1 March?
[A]: span

[Q]: Passage: Due to economic, social and security developments that are affecting the region in recent decades, the focus is now the change from net immigration to net emigration. About 10 million Mexicans live in the United States. 31.7 million Americans listed their ancestry as Mexican as of 2010, or roughly 10% of the population. According to the 2005 Colombian census or DANE, about 3,331,107 Colombians currently live abroad. The number of Brazilians living overseas is estimated at about 2 million people. An estimated 1.5 to two million Salvadorans reside in the United States. At least 1.5 million Ecuadorians have gone abroad, mainly to the United States and Spain. Approximately 1.5 million Dominicans live abroad, mostly in the United States. More than 1.3 million Cubans live abroad, most of them in the United States. It is estimated that over 800,000 Chileans live abroad, mainly in Argentina, the United States, Canada, Australia and Sweden. An estimated 700,000 Bolivians were living in Argentina as of 2006 and another 33,000 in the United States. Central Americans living abroad in 2005 were 3,314,300, of which 1,128,701 were El Salvador, 685,713 were Guatemalans, 683,520 were Nicaraguans, 414,955 were Hondurans, 215,240 were Panamanians and 127,061 were Costa Ricans.
Question: How many more Bolivians were living in Argentina than in the United States as of 2006?
[A]:
number