input with options: The popularity of lip pencils and crayons is soaring, I suspect it's because they're just so easy to use. I've been trying out two new ones to see which I prefer. In the red corner we have MAC Patent Polish Lip Pencil and in the blue corner we have NARS Velvet Matte Lip Pencil. So let's get ready to rumble while I put them through their paces. Although the packaging of these two is quite similar the formulation and finish of the lip colours are very different MAC Patent Polish is a light gloss and NARS Velvet Matte has a stark matte finish. So whether you prefer your lips sheer and glossy or pigmented and matte there should be something for everyone here. MAC Patent Polish Lip Pencil this is the first lip pencil that I've tried from MAC (apart from lip liner) and I'm really impressed with it. As the name suggests the finish is a very shiny gloss that gives an almost patent shine, it has the feel of a lip gloss but it's not sticky. The colour is called Spontaneous, MAC describe it as a 'soft plum with pearl'. It's definitely a plummy shade, although I can't really detect any pearl in there. It looks quite dark as a crayon but as it's very sheer it appears much more natural once it's on the lips. It's a great way to introduce darker lip colours to your make-up bag if you're not used to them. MAC Patent Polish Lip Pencil is a bit like a fabulous giant tinted lip balm! The crayon itself is chunky and easy to hold, the nib is quite chunky and not great for precision application, but you could use a lip brush to apply it. I love to apply MAC Patent Polish straight from the crayon, it's quick and easy, and as it's very light and sheer it's easy to wipe away any mistakes and re-apply. Question: Why was the author trying both lip products? === The answer to the above question is
OPTIONS:
- not enough information
- because the products are similar
- because she wanted to see which one she preferred
- because she liked both products
output: because she wanted to see which one she preferred

Q: Yes I had. In a domestic violence case (in which I was the accused, but by God I was innocent) with my ex girlfriend, the lawyer whom I hired and paid his dues, openly played a wheeling and dealing game for two and a half years with the prosecutor and had mercilessly thrown me in front of the prosecutor. My ex girlfriend was sexually abused by her own uncles at the age of 5 to 9, had a lot of illusions and psychological problems, along with Bi-Polar Disorder, however, dispite my requests, she never had ever visited a psychologist or psychiatrist in her then 24 years of lifetime, fearing she would be forced to unveil the uncles' child sexual abuse act and this would cause her dismissal from her immediate family. Although I mentioned this to my "so called" lawyer, he refused to mention her unstable psychological condition in the court. I believe by doing so, he also committed a crime by preventing a child sexual abuse case go unveiled. After all these and after having me pushed into loosing my otherwise strong case, I was sentenced with restriction order to my own home, loosing all I had paid for it, loosing my stuff inside home, aforced probation and a forced domestic violence course for no good reason, my so called bloody lawyer also sent to the court a paper indicating that I owed to him and never had paid his dues. Disgusting wheeling and dealing quite often happen between such disgusting lawyers and greedy, heartless prosecutors; unfortunately! My psychologist friend at the time said, "If you are in Illinois, in Champaign County and you have a penis, you are already accepted as guilty by birth to start with dude". They say "Sharks wouldn't attack and eat Lawyers after a ship sunk". Why? It's professional courtesy! Question: He believes that his lawyer === The answer to the above question is

OPTIONS:
- not enough information
- Did a terrible job
- Did a good job
- Did a terrible job

A: Did a terrible job

The address I had been given was a flophouse called Casa Salvador in the scummy side of downtown, the part where the city's redevelopment (read: "gentrification") efforts hadn't yet managed to drive out the sundry undesirable elements. I walked inside past the front lobby. I could tell the desk manager wanted to hassle me, but he was too busy arguing with a middle-aged peroxide-blonde woman in a leopard-print top. Her skin was leathery and weather beaten, and I guessed she was the type who was actually a good ten years younger than she looked. I made my way up the narrow staircase that smelled of urine and bleach, going all the way to the third floor. I continued down the dimly lit hallway, past a series of closed doors that muffled the sounds of women faking moans of pleasure. Room 313 was down at the far end of the hall, and its door was already slightly ajar. I knocked anyways, but there was no answer. Pushing the door open just enough to poke my head in, I called, "Hello? Is anybody in there?" There was no response, so I went in and felt along the wall for the light switch. A single weak bulb came on, lighting up the tiny, sparse room with a dim yellow glow. The room was about 8 feet by 8 feet, and the only furniture was a dingy, unmade bed and a metal foot locker. There were no windows, no closet, and no bathroom. As I stepped all the way in, I noticed a wooden baseball bat propped up beside the door. My watch said 6:20 - twenty minutes late for the interview. I sat on the edge of the bed to wait, hoping that maybe my contact had just stepped out momentarily. After a few minutes, a phone started ringing out in the hallway. I let it ring six times with no one answering before I decided to get it - partly in the off chance it was my contact, but mostly out of morbid curiosity as to what kind of business someone would have calling this dump. Question: What did he think the desk manager wanted to do? === The answer to the above question is

OPTIONS:
- not enough information
- Interview him.
- Hassle him.
- Help him.

Answer:
Hassle him.