input: OPTIONS:
- The true Indian's acquaintance
- A club member
- not enough information
- A team member Now, answer this question: Read the following context and answer the question. Context: "India is OUR country" The quote we often preach but forget to deliver. I joined a club recently where I met a true Indian. I asked him about the most vivid memory of his life. One morning, as he was heading towards his office, he realized that the road he regularly takes was unusually bumpy. Upon inspection, he came to the conclusion that a truck carrying stones passed by on that road and unintentionally scattered few stones along the way. He believed that the authority of the truck will take care of this later that day. Next morning, the road situation was unchanged with stones still scattered. He parked his vehicle nearby, put on some music and started kicking the stones off the road. Within a few minutes, a school bus stopped by, students gathered around and started clapping for this true Indian. As he turned around, he said "Helping hands are better than clapping hands". As a repercussion, the students started helping this man kick the stones off the road. A task that would have taken hours to be done by one person was completed in a couple of minutes. What a great example of team work! It was this man's discretionary efforts that brought a change in the thought process of the students, India's next generation. We all point fingers and blame one another for societal problems but never act upon it. If this man, a true Indian, would have just blammed the truck driver and went on his way, would the road still be cleared? The next time we point fingers at someone for a social cause, we must keep in mind that that someone is an Indian just like us. Will a true Indian point fingers at an Indian? Are we pointing fingers at ourselves? In the end, we are all in the same team. Question: Who is relating the story? Answer:
A:
output: not enough information

input: OPTIONS:
- not enough information
- Six hours
- One hour
- Twenty four hours Now, answer this question: Read the following context and answer the question. Context: I showed up at the address on Columbine's invitation just before eleven; it was a converted warehouse in an industrial zone on the city's north side. Since it was a Saturday night, everything else was empty for miles. The parking lot was filled with sports cars, hybrids, and shiny suburban tanks. The door facing the parking lot was open, spilling out muted lights and the din of yuppie chatter. It cast a somewhat foreboding aura over the entrance. The first thing I noticed as I approached was the beefy refrigerator in a rented tux blocking the doorway. The second thing was the surveillance camera perched on the wall above his head. I had stopped home and changed first, so I was sure I was dressed mostly appropriately for some rich faux-hipster art party - charcoal gray pinstripe jacket over a TV on the Radio t-shirt, skinny cuffed jeans, Docs, and a black fedora. I certainly didn't look any worse than the other idiots I saw filing in and out of the door. I even had an invitation. So I was fairly confident I'd be able to gain admission to this thing without incident. "No, absolutely not," the doorman said, pressing a meaty palm into my chest. "I was invited!" I said, exasperated. "I have documentation." I waved the rave card in front of his face. "No dice." I stepped aside to let a couple of aging goths through the door and wondered for a moment if the doorman somehow knew who I was. Then I noticed the ear piece he was wearing and my eyes darted back to the surveillance camera. "Motherfucker," I spat and raised both arms to flip off the camera. I didn't know it at the time, but at that moment Dylan Maxwell was sitting in front of a wall of monitors, laughing his ass off. Question: How long will the party probably last? Answer:
A:
output: Six hours

input: OPTIONS:
- not enough information
- She is concerned about a constitutional crisis
- She is concerned about the right to vote
- She is against gerrymandering Now, answer this question: Read the following context and answer the question. Context: The U.S. Supreme Court plunged into the politically messy issue of redrawing congressional and legislative districts Tuesday, in a case that could have profound implications for both major political parties for years to come. The high court heard oral arguments in a case brought by Democratic voters in Wisconsin. They argued that a Republican redistricting plan for the state assembly was so overtly partisan that it violated constitutional protections of freedom of speech and equal protection under the law for Wisconsin voters. A lower federal court sided with the challengers last year and against Republican state officials in Wisconsin. Officials argued Tuesday that they had not violated any constitutional rights when they drew up new boundaries for state assembly districts. "Our legislature followed traditional redistricting criteria, which is what they have been required to do and we think they followed that and that the justices will agree," Wisconsin Attorney General Brad Schimel told reporters in front of the court following the oral arguments. The process of state legislatures redrawing congressional and legislative district boundaries has been enmeshed in politics for two centuries. Early on, the process was referred to as "gerrymandering," where one party or the other tries to gain an electoral advantage by redrawing district boundaries to maximize their voting clout. Republicans have had success in several states in redrawing congressional and legislative voting districts and that has helped them maintain their majority in the House of Representatives. Democrats have come under fire as well for partisan maps in states where they control the legislature, like Maryland and Massachusetts. During Tuesday's oral arguments, the more liberal high court justices seemed open to the case brought by Democratic voters. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said a ruling in favor of the Republican districting plan in Wisconsin would encourage others to stack the deck against their political opponents. "What becomes of the... Question: What is probably true about Ruth Bader Ginsburg? Answer:
A:
output:
She is against gerrymandering