Problem: OPTIONS:
- hopefully
- with suspicion
- favorably
- not enough information
Q: SEOUL The U.S. has indicated it is prepared to open the North Korean economy to significant private investment, if a nuclear deal can be reached. But even if economic restrictions were lifted, the restrictive and repressive state would likely still present a challenging environment for foreign investment. U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said on Sunday that if North Korean leader Kim Jong Un complies with what President Donald Trump has demanded, the complete, verifiable, and irreversible denuclearization of North Korea, the United States would offer foreign investment "in spades" to build up the country's infrastructure and develop its economy. "This will be Americans coming in, private sector Americans, not the U.S. taxpayer, private sector Americans coming in to help build out the energy grid. They need enormous amounts of electricity in North Korea; to work with them to develop infrastructure, all the things that the North Korean people need, the capacity for American agriculture to support North Korea, so they can eat meat and have healthy lives," said Pompeo during an interview on the Fox News Sunday program. The Secretary of State recently returned from a trip to Pyongyang, where he meet with the North Korean leader to prepare for the upcoming Trump-Kim summit that will be held in Singapore on June 12. North Korea also released three American prisoners to Pompeo as a humanitarian gesture in advance of the summit. The Trump administration is increasingly optimistic it can work out an agreement to dismantle the North's nuclear program, its advanced ballistic missile arsenal, and chemical weapons capabilities, so as to no longer threaten the U.S. or it is allies. During the recent North-South summit, Kim committed to the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, and indicated that he seeks an end to the severe U.S.-led sanctions banning 90 percent of North Korean trade that were imposed for his country's repeated nuclear and missile tests. "They obviously want to make concessions, a lot of... Question: After the Trump-Kim summit, how will Kim be viewed by Americans? === The answer to the above question is
Answer: with suspicion

Problem:OPTIONS:
- not enough information
- That the surgeon was to blame
- He misses his wife
- That the speaker was to blame

April 2-May 2 is the worst 30 day period for me. The reason is April 2, 2014 was the day my 53 year old wife found out that she had metastasized lung cancer. A large tumor had formed on the bottom of one lung, they found 4 tumors in her brain, another large one in her stomach and several more throughout her intestinal track. She rarely complained about physical problems and I knew something was wrong when she said she needed to go to the hospital ER. She died exactly 30 days later. I spent virtually every minute of that time with her. I went with her to radiation appointments. I stayed in the hospital with her because it seemed like every week I would have to take her in for something that required a 3 or 4 day stay. And the final trip to the ER was May 1st. An MRI showed that one of the tumors in her intestines had torn a hole in her bowel. The ER surgeon told us straight up that she was beyond any medical care that could help her and to use the next 24 hours to say goodbye to family and friends. And almost exactly 24 hours later, she was gone. I was devastated. 30.5 years of Happily Ever After turned into god fucking damn it all to hell! And when April 2 rolls around every year, I begin living those last 30 days of her life over again. I thought that after the third time in 2017 that I was about ready to let it go. I started really living again instead of just existing. But when April 2 came this year, I found that I was back in my memories. It was easier to deal with this time because of the way I had changed over the last year. I hung around with more friends and they helped distract me and one actually helped me turn May 2 into a celebration. And I love her for that. That's my story. Question: The speaker probably thinks that: === The answer to the above question is
****
A: He misses his wife

input: OPTIONS:
- because certain parts couldn't be used at the same time
- because he wanted a better designed tool
- because he preferred ordinary utensils
- not enough information Now, answer this question: I picked up this Sporf in Amsterdam Schipol airport. A spork I'd seen before, but the addition of a simple serration on the side of the fork end makes this a genuine "three-in-one" implement for eating one's full three-course takeaway meal on the plane. The sporf is no innovation; back in 1940 the "sporf" was born. It took me until 2015 to notice this one thanks to its rather pleasant design. The sporf is a little like most strategy documents that I come across. It is one implement designed to serve a multitude of goals, but with one fatal flaw: you can only ever use one part of the sporf / strategy at any one time. With the sporf, things would get messy trying to use the spoon and knife and the same time. The knife and fork work quite well in sequence but physics prevents me using both at the same time as I can with the older technologies of knife and fork. In strategy formation, we can develop a multitude of potential purposes within one document, killer vision statement or mission. But it's important to recognise that the teams around us will only ever be able to do one thing really well at any one time. This is a lesson oft ignored by schools, in particular, as they attempt to ask educators to create an ever-more creative curriculum without having first tackled attitudes towards summative assessments throughout the year. It is also a challenge in some of the world's most successful, but now stagnating, big businesses: they've spent decades or centuries building a reputation across a large array of devices, technologies, components or clothing, but the real strategy is working out which of the current array needs killed off to enable teams in their quest to develop something totally new, properly innovative. Question: Why was the author unhappy with the sporf design? === The answer to the above question is
A:
output:
because certain parts couldn't be used at the same time