In this task, you're given an article and an answer. Your task is to generate the question for the answer based on the given article.

Ex Input:
Article: Some businesses and apartment buildings are telling kids to go away. A device called the Mosquitois being used in the United Kingdom, Australia, and New York to keep kids from gathering in big groups and causing trouble. The Mosquitomakes a noise that only kids can hear. About 3000Mosquitounits have been fixed in the United Kingdom. In the United States, managers of an apartment building in New York City recently fixed one to keep noisy kids from taking over the building's entrance-hall. A children's rights agency in England wants the device forbidden. The agency says the device unfairly targets teens. Some also worry that the high sounds could hurt young ears. Fans of the Mosquito say it keeps kids out of trouble and off private property. "Mosquito devices violate the human rights of kids. The use of the devices is targeted at kids because it considers all kids as troublemakers. The devices are also harmful because the noise could hurt kids' hearing. Besides violating our rights, the Mosquitois dangerous. It could hurt the ears and the hearing of teens, babies and animals because they are more sensitive," says California eighth grader Kelly Straky. "It is not right to place the device in a public place. Teenagers have as much right to public places as adults. I listened to theMosquitosound, and it was extremely loud. It hurts not only your ears but also your whole head. It isn't just annoying; it's painful. It should not be allowed." Fans of the Mosquitobelieve that property owners have a right to decide who can be on their property and who cannot.Mosquitodevices are a method of protecting private property and keeping the peace. Property laws are put into place to protect the public. "Yes, I do believe that the rights of teens should be valued, but we must always put ourselves in other people's shoes and see the other side. In this case, doing so allows people to understand the negative effects, such as crime, that loitering can have on an area or a community," said Kayla Hill from New York.
Answer: Lawyers.

Ex Output:
Who are probably fans of the Mosquito?

Ex Input:
Article: Astronomers say they are on the point of finding planets like Earth orbiting other stars, which is a key step in determining if we are alone in the universe. A top NASA official and other leading scientists say that within four or five years they should discover the first Earth-like planet where life could develop, or may have already. A planet close to the size of Earth could even be found sometime this year. At the annual American Astronomical Society conference this week, each discovery involving so-called "exoplanets" --those outside our solar system -- pointed to the same conclusion:Quiet planets like Earth where life could develop probably are plentiful. NASA's Dew Kepler telescope and a lot of new research from the suddenly hot and competitive exoplanet field caused noticeable buzz at the meeting.Scientists are talking about being at "an incredible special place in history" and closer to answering the question. "Are we alone? For the first time, there's an optimism that sometime in our lifetimes we're going to _ that," said Simon Worden,an astronomer who heads NASA's Ames Research Center. "If I were a betting man, which I am, I would bet we're not alone." "These are big questions that reflect upon the meaning of the human race in the universe," the director of the Vatican Observatory, the Rev. Jose Funes, said Wednesday in an interview at this week's conference. Worden told The Associated Press: "I would certainly expect in the next four or five years we'd have an Earth-sized planet in the habitable zone."
Answer: Finding an Earth-like planet

Ex Output:
What is very important in determining if we are alone in the universe?

Ex Input:
Article: In 1693 the philosopher John Locke warned that children should not be given too much "unhealthy fruit" to eat.Three centuries later, misguided ideas about child-raising are still popular.Many parents fear that their children will die unless ceaselessly watched.In America the law can be equally paranoid .In South Carolina this month Debra Harrell was jailed for letting her 9-year-old daughter play in a park unsupervised . Her severe punishment reflects the rich world's worry about parenting.By most objective measures, modern parents are far more conscientious than previous generations.Dads are more hands-on than their fathers were, and working mothers spend more time nurturing their children than the housewives of the 1960s did.However, there are two problems in this picture, connected to class.One is at the lower end.Even if poor parents spend more time with their children than they once did, they spend less than rich parents do.America is a _ here: its government spends abundantly on school-age kids but much less than other rich countries on the first two or three years of life.If America did more to help poor parents with young children, it would have huge returns. The second one, occurs at the other end of the income scale, and may even apply to otherwise rational Economist readers: well-educated, rich parents try to do too much.Safety is part of it--they fear that if they are not constantly watching their children may break their necks, which is the least rational.Despite the impression you get from watching crime dramas, children in rich countries are safe, so long as they look both ways before crossing the road.The other popular parental fear--that your children might not get into an Ivy League college--is more rational.Academic success matters more than ever before.But beyond a certain point, parenting makes less difference than many parents imagine.Studies in Minnesota and Sweden, for example, found that identical twins grew up equally intelligent whether they were raised together or apart.A study in Colorado found that children that adopted and raised by brainy parents ended up no brainier than those adopted by average parents. This doesn't mean that parenting is irrelevant.The families who adopt children are carefully screened, so they tend to be warm, capable and middle-class.But the twin and adoption studies indicate that any child given a loving home and adequate stimulation is likely to fulfill her potential.Put another way, better-off parents can afford to relax a bit.And if you are less stressed, your children will appreciate it, even if you still make them eat their fruit and vegetables.
Answer: Children are likely to fulfill their potential with a loving home and adequate stimulation

Ex Output:
Which of the following statements is NOT a misguided idea of parenting mentioned in the passage?