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.

Input: Consider Input: Article: When policy experts debate climate change solutions, they often talk about "a price on carbon." They are arguing about whether companies should pay when they put carbon pollution in the air. Proponents say that it's simple economics -- if it's free to pollute, you'll get a lot of pollution. Opponents claim it will raise the cost of energy that's produced from high carbon sources, like coal. But here's the secret that most people seem to be missing: There already is a price on carbon, and it's paid by the taxpayers. Carbon pollution, like every other form of pollution, has an impact on the environment. Throwing waste into a river will cause the fish to die and the people who drink the water to get sick. And when you produce carbon pollution, you get climate change -- sea level rise, stronger storms, severe droughts, damage to agriculture, and more. All of those impacts cost money. Insurance rates go up when storms get more destructive. Taxes increase when cities have to rebuild bridges and roads. Military budgets go up when droughts and population changes cause conflicts. Not to mention impacts on agriculture and health care costs. In other words, the price on carbon is what we all pay when there is no market force to limit the pollution that causes climate change. So the debate is really about who will pay that price -- the companies who are making a profit from the fossil fuels, or the taxpayers who pick up the cost now? Right now, we have private profit and public cost. It's just like if we allowed every business to throw its garbage in the street because it's too expensive to have it moved away properly. Does it add a little bit to your dinner check to require that restaurants dispose of their trash properly? Sure. But it would be more expensive for you if the city had to clean the streets of their garbage every day. So just like we put a "price on garbage" we need a "price on carbon pollution." Now, a "price on carbon pollution" can mean a lot of things. You could tax companies based on the amount of carbon pollution they produce, and return the money to taxpayers. You could put a limit on how much they can produce, thereby requiring them to invest in ways to conduct business in a less polluting way.
Answer: Whether the companies should pay for it.

Output: What do the policy experts argue about carbon pollution?

Input: Consider Input: Article: Beautifully cut grass, elegant white clothes, cheering fans and exciting matches make Wimbledon, in London, the home of tennis. Last Monday, the famous British tournament opened at the All England Lawn Tennis Club. It is the third Grand Slam tournament of the tennis season. Wimbledon comes after the Australian Open and the French Open, and is followed by the US Open. As the oldest tennis tournament in the world, Wimbledon is famous for its special rules and traditions. The players' clothing, including their shoes, must be entirely white. In 2002, the Russian player Anna Kournikova was forced to change from her black shorts into another pair on court. Between 1988 and 1990, US legend Andre Agassi refused to play because of the all-white rule. The UK's unpredictable summer weather is part of the tournament. If it begins to rain, players and fans have to wait patiently for it to stop. Then, they cheer when the covers come off the grass courts. Many British fans do not think the courts should have a roof, because they want to keep tradition. Wimbledon is not just famous for great tennis matches. Fans like to eat strawberries and cream while watching. Every year 27,000 kilos of strawberries and 7,000 liters of cream are eaten. Many British people are very proud of the tournament, but disappointment is another Wimbledon tradition for loyal fans of British players. Wimbledon has not been won by a British woman since 1977, and not by a British man since 1938.
Answer: The US Open.

Output: Which of the following tournaments is the last to be held?

Input: Consider Input: Article: Our cat has a sweet nature, and she can let us know what she wants. When we fail to meet her needs, she gently leads us in the proper direction. When I forget to fill her water bowl early in the morning, she runs after my legs, and then pushes me in the direction of her bowl. She doesn't get irritated ; instead, she expresses her wishes in the best way. And I always understand what she is telling me. One day I found myself envying her simple expression. How many times had I expected my husband or my children to know my wants without my ever giving voice to them? How many times had I been disappointed that they couldn't understand when I needed a hug, a compliment or a chocolate bar? After a pleasant afternoon with my husband, I wanted to stop somewhere nice and have dinner, but he didn't understand my hints . "Couldn't you see that I wanted to go out to dinner?" I complained when he pulled into our driveway. "Why didn't you say so? I can't read your mind," he answered in impatience. _ . Had I expected him to read my mind? Why hadn't I expressed my desire more clearly? I realized I had fallen into the female trap of "If you love me, you can read my mind." Now, I state my needs clearly and directly. I look at my cat and know she agrees.
Answer: They didn't understand her mind.
Output: Why was the author disappointed in her husband or her children?