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 state of voters sued to protect themselves from gerrymandering? Answer:

OPTIONS:
- Wisconsin
- not enough information
- Maryland
- Massachusetts

Answer: Wisconsin

Problem: OPTIONS:
- A doctor
- A blogger
- A nutritionist
- not enough information
Q: Read the following context and answer the question. Context: What do apples, pears and oranges all have in common? If you answered that they are all fruits you are absolutely correct. If you answered that they are all good for your health you are spot on again. Fruits used to be a staple in many diets, however in amongst all of the low carb and anti sugar chaos, many people are now avoiding them. In a rush to rid the diet of 'toxic sugar', fruit has fallen on the wayside. However, many studies have shown that fruit is not linked to any adverse health effects, quite the opposite in fact. Most recently researchers in Sweden discovered that eating a diet high in fruits could reduce the risk of an often lethal form of aortic aneurysm. The study collected data from over 80,000 people over a 13 year period and found that people eating at least two whole fruits per day, reduced the risk of developing an abdominal aortic aneurysm by almost a third. The main fruits that were eaten were apples, pears, bananas, oranges and other citrus fruits. The fruits' high antioxidant levels may offer protection by reducing oxidative stress and inflammation. Eating whole fruits can also reduced the risk of developing diabetes. Earlier this year a study published in the British Medical Journal revealed that certain whole fruits in particular blueberries, grapes, apples and pears could lower the risk of developing type 2 diabetes. The study found that over an 18-year period, 6.5% of the 187,382 participants developed diabetes, but those consuming at least two serves of fruit per week reduced their risk by up to 23%. In the same study those who consumed two or more serves of fruit juice per day increased their risk of developing diabetes by as much as 21%. As Tim wrote in a previous blog post, this is reason why you should be eating your fruit, not drinking it Question: Who is Tim? Answer:
Answer: not enough information

input with options: Read the following context and answer the question. Context: When we got married we thought it was going to be all bliss and happiness for life. By about week two we both had an awakening. Something about being exact opposites and together 24/7. We clashed about something so important I can't even remember what it was. We hadn't really ever had that happen while engaged. Suddenly we realized that the bliss and excitement was growing into, well, everyday life. And all that passionate romance that had driven our relationship was growing, well, less passionate. We both realized our marriage had entered a new phase, one of many, through the years. And we needed to be much more purposeful about making sure it worked. Purposeful because the blinding emotional love some days seemed to be asleep. Yet, we both had committed to our marriage. For better or worse. So we decided we had the potential for either. We needed to make it better or it would become worse. We learned to really talk. Even when it was difficult. We learned to argue without hurting each other. We purposefully expressed love even in those times we didn't especially feel it. We built romance into our relationship even when we didn't feel romantic. And through the years our relationship has grown. Sometimes through difficult times. Heck, sometimes through difficult eras. Yet, we both never gave up the dream of making our marriage great. We never gave up the ideal of living together in love for a lifetime. And because of that, through all the trials and triumphs. Through all the frustration and bliss. Through all the sameness and romance. We still everyday enjoy our love and each other. And can't imagine life without the other. Well actually, there have been probably a couple of those days for my wife. She's just too nice to say it. A great marriage isn't built because it's perfect. Only because you keep trying to make it perfect. Question: Who is too nice to say something? Answer:
OPTIONS:
- the minister
- the husband
- not enough information
- the wife
output:
the wife