In this task, you're given an article, a question which often contains a blank and four options (associated with "A", "B", "C", "D"). Your task is to find the correct answer (from the given options) for the question from the given article and return one of the options from "A", "B", "C", and "D". Do not generate anything else apart from one of the following characters: "A", "B", "C", "D". There is only one correct answer for each question.

Example Input: Article: In the atmosphere, carbon dioxide acts rather like a one-way mirror or the glass in the roof of a greenhouse which allows the sun's rays to enter but prevents the heat from escaping According to a weather expert's prediction , the atmosphere will be 3degC warmer in the year 2050 than it is today, if man continues to burn fuels at the present rate.If this warming up took place.the ice caps in the poles would begin to inch,thus raising sea level several meters and severely flooding coastal cities.Also.the increase in atmospheric temperature would lead to great changes in the climate of the northern hemisphere ,possibly resulting in an alteration of the earth's chief food growing zones. In the past,concern about a man-made warming of the earth has concentrated on the Arctic because the Antarctic is much colder and has a much thicker ice sheet.But the weather experts are now paying more attention to West Antarctic.which may be affected by only a few degrees of warming,in other words,by a warming on the scale that will possibly take place in the next fifty years from the burning of fuels. Satellite pictures show that large areas of Antarctic ice are already disappearing.The evidence available suggests that a warming has taken place.This fits the theory that carbon dioxide warms the earth. However, most of the fuel is burnt in the northern hemisphere,where temperatures seem to be falling.Scientists conclude,therefore ,that up to now natural influences on the weather have gone beyond those caused by man.The question is:Which natural cause has most effect on the weather? One possibility is the variable behavior of the sun.Astronomers at one research station have studied the hot spots and 'cold' spots (that is, the ly less hot spots)on the sun.As the sun rotates ,every 27.5 days,it presents hotter or colder faces to the earth,and different aspects to different parts of the earth.This seems to have a considerable effect on the distribution of the earth atmospheric pressure,and consequently on wind circulation.The sun is also changeable over a long term:its heat output goes up and down in cycles,the latest trend being downward. ' Scientists are now finding shared relations between models of solar weather interactions and the actual climate over many thousands of years,including the last ice Age.The problem is that the models are predicting that the world should be entering a new Ice Age and it is not.One way of solving this theoretical difficulty is to assume a delay of thousands of years while the solar effects overcome the inertia of the earth's climate.If this is right, the warming effect of carbon dioxide might thus be serving as a useful opposed balance to the sun's fading heat.
Question: It can be concluded that a concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would_.
Options: (A) mean a warming-up in the Arctic (B) raise the temperature of the earth's surface (C) prevent the sun's rays from reaching the earth's surface (D) explain the cause of great changes in the climate in the northern hemisphere
Example Output: B

Example Input: Article: Why doesn't the unemployment rate ever reach zero? Economists, who generally believe that supply tends to meet demand, have long thought about this question. Even in good times, i.e. not now, there are people who can't find work. And even in bad times, i.e. now, there are job openings. With over 14 million people out of work and looking for a job, you would think every available job would be filled. But that's not the case. Not now and not ever. On Monday, the Nobel Prize committee awarded the prize for economics to the three scholars who have done the most to explain this phenomenon. Two of the winners are Americans, Peter Diamond of MIT and Dale Mortensen of Northwestern. The third winner is Christopher Pissarides, who teaches at the London School of Economics and was born on Cyprus. Like most of economics, what they have found about why the jobless and ready-employers don't find each other seems obvious. You have to find out there is job opening you are interested in. Employers need to get resumes . It takes a while for both employers and employees to make the decision that this is what they want. And these guys came up with a frame-work to study the problem of why people stay unemployed longer than they should and what can be done about it. So what would today's Nobel Prize winners do to solve the current problem of the unemployed? And does the awarding of the prize contribute to the politicians' lowering joblessness? Speaking from his north London home, Pissarides told The Associated Press the announcement came as "a complete surprise" though his work had already helped shape thinking on both sides of the Atlantic. For example, the New Deal for Young People, a British government policy aimed at getting 18-24-year-olds back on the job market after long periods of unemployment, "is very much based on our work," he said. "One of the key things we found is that it is important to make sure that people do not stay unemployed too long so they don't lose their feel for the labor force," Pissarides told reporters in London. "The ways of dealing with this need not be expensive training - it could be as simple as providing work experience."
Question: According to the writer, which is true about finding jobs?
Options: (A) It is always difficult to find a job. (B) Everyone can find a job in good times. (C) Contrary to popular belief, it is easier to find a job in bad times. (D) It is possible to find a job even in times as bad as now.
Example Output: D

Example Input: Article: Too often we accuse others of not listening, pretending that we ourselves are faultless, yet in our hearts we know that many of the mistakes we make come about because we haven't listened carefully enough. We get things wrong because we haven't listened carefully enough. We get things wrong because we haven't quite understood what someone meant when they were talking to us. Anyone who has ever taken the minutes of a long meeting will know how hard it is to remember-- despite the benefit of notes-- exactly what everyone said. But success depends on getting things right--and that means listening. Listening is not the same thing as hearing; it is not an effort actively. It demands attention and concentration. It may mean quizzing the speaker for additional information or for clarification------ it is always better to ask than to continue regardless and get things wrong. However, if you allow your mind to wander onto something else, even for a few minutes, you'll miss what the speaker is saying------ probably at the very moment when he or she is saying something critical. And not having heard, you won't know you've missed anything until it's too late. The most common bad habit we have is to start thinking of what we are going to say about the subject long before the other speaker has finished. We then stop listening. Even worse, this often adds rudeness to inattentiveness, as once you have decided what to say there is a fair chance you will interrupt to say it. Good listeners don't interrupt. In fact it is often worth explaining the main idea of what you have just been told before going on to make your own points. Nobody is offended by this and it shows that you have listened well. Above all be patient and accept that many people are not very good communicators. It's helpful to remember that the ways people move and position themselves while they are speaking can reveal a great deal about what they are saying. Equally important you should put yourself in the other person's place, both intellectually and emotionally; it will help you to understand what they are getting at and form a response. But don't be too clever. Faced with a know-all, many people keep quiet because they see no point in continuing.
Question: Which is the best title for this passage?
Options: (A) Don't be too clever (B) Be a good listener. (C) Don't miss anything critical (D) Think of the speaker
Example Output:
B