input: OPTIONS:
- not enough information
- spaghetti and garlic bread
- pizza
- Macaroni and cheese Now, answer this question: Read the following context and answer the question. Context: My then-teenage daughter and I went to a new restaurant. It was empty apart from the manager. We were told to find ourselves a table, so we sat in an attractive area sort of like a small stage. No waitress came by for 10 minutes, so we decided to visit the restroom; there was just one, with one toilet. But a woman rushed in ahead of us, carrying a bundle of clothes. Several minutes later, when she reappeared, we realized this was our waitressarriving late and pushing us customers out of the way so she could change. OK We each used the restroom and returned to our table. But it was not our table anymore. Along came the manager to explain she needed to set aside the stage-like area for a very special group. My daughter and I had already been debating whether to stay or leave. We stayed only because we were very hungry and worried that we'd have to start waiting all over again if we tried a different place. We were led to our new table: a lonely little table in the hall leading to the toilet. I was ready to get out of there, pronto, but my daughter spotted her favorite meal on the menu. But after another 15 minutes, with the lone waitress not appearing, we both shook our heads and got up Oh, here's the waitress! We ordered. Fifteen minutes later, no food. We got up again and exited past the stage-like area, which was just as empty as it had been when we were ejected. The very special people had not arrivedso (had we been served) we could have enjoyed our meal right there. We did find food elsewhere. The first place closed in less than a month. Good riddance! Question: What meal did the daughter order? Answer:
A:
output: not enough information

Read the following context and answer the question. Context: Regular readers of Beauty Best Friend blog will know that I suffer from an extremely sensitive scalp which can be really itchy, and I have to be very careful what shampoo I use. I know that I'm sensitive to shampoos containing sodium laureth sulfate (also known as SLS, it's the ingredient that makes shampoos, shower gels and soaps lather) but I'm also sensitive to some other ingredients in shampoos too mainly fragrances. I had previously been using Rainforest Balance Shampoo and Conditioner from The Body Shop®️, but I found the conditioner a bit too rich and my hair didn't always feel totally clean after using it. So I started doing a bit of research into recommended natural shampoos and this Sensitive Shampoo from Lavera kept coming up again and again! Several of the reviews I read said that this was the best shampoo for sensitive scalps and that it left hair feeling really clean and soft, so I decided to try it. The shampoo is a translucent peach-coloured gel that contains organic witch hazel and organic almond milk. It has quite a strong scent, but it's a nice one so it doesn't put me off. The shampoo feels creamy when you rub it together in your hands, but I did need quite a lot of it to get a good lather on my first application the second application lathers a lot more easily. I definitely agree that this makes hair feel a lot cleaner than a lot of the other SLS-free shampoos that I've tried, my hair feels clean and full and soft when I've used it the same way it would do if I were using a regular shampoo. I think it also helps my hair to dry more quickly and makes it easier to straighten too. But where this shampoo is outstanding is the way it makes my scalp feel my scalp feels soothed and calm and there's no hint of itching. I've been using Lavera Sensitive Shampoo for over a year now and I wouldn't change it for the world, it's definitely one of the best shampoos for a sensitive itchy scalp. Question: Who will the author probably share his success with Lavera with? Answer:

OPTIONS:
- just blog readers
- his family members and blog readers
- not enough information
- his co-workers only

Answer: not enough information

Read the following context and answer the question. Context: If you turned on the TV towards the end of 2002 you could have been forgiven for thinking that Britain had gone absolutely horseshit mental. Every week, it seemed, another pretty young girl from a nice family, who was happy and popular and always did well at school, was being kidnapped or murdered by what the Sun newspaper cheerfully termed 'evil paedo scum'. Naming and shaming was as popular a feature in the Murdoch press as Page Three girls and discounted holidays to Butlin's. Of course you can't blame parents for wanting to keep their children safe; that's pretty much the job description of a parent. And, on the face of it, the tabloids were doing a public service in warning us about the paedophile menace lurking in our midst. The problem came when it turned out that a huge number of these concerned tabloid-reading parents were also absolute fucking morons. For every story of an actual sex offender being driven from their house by a baying mob there was one like that of Dr Yvette Cloete, a doctor at the Royal Gwent Hospital in Newport, South Wales, who returned home from work to find that a group of 'concerned parents' had daubed the word 'paedo' on her front door in bright red paint. Dr Cloete was a consultant paediatrician. Easy mistake. If you're an absolute fucking moron. And so it was that one hung-over morning, after reading yet another story about vigilantes who had threatened to stone Maxine Carr, the girlfriend of Soham killer Ian Huntley, to death during her high-profile trial for perverting the course of justice, I decided to set up a website parodying this collective national madness. The result of two or three hours of hung-over labour was thinkofthechildren.co.uk, a spoof campaign site which claimed to offer a handy online guide for crazy vigilantes of all stripes to co-ordinate their crazy vigilante efforts. Although there are a few parts of the site I'm still a bit proud of, the majority of it was, I freely admit, satire of the lowest order. Question: What happened to the narrator after the article? Answer:
OPTIONS:
- Their website made them a target.
- Their website got a lot of traffic.
- Their website was a success.
- not enough information

Answer:
Their website was a success.