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.

Ex 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.
Question: What do the policy experts argue about carbon pollution?
Options: (A) Whether the companies should pay for it. (B) Whether taxpayers could get profit from it. (C) Who have the ability to change it. (D) How much should be paid for it.

Ex Output:
A

Ex Input:
Article: The economic growth that many nations in Asia and increasingly Africa have experienced over the past couple of decades has transformed hundreds of millions of lives - almost entirely for the better. But there's a _ to that growth, one that's evident - or sometimes less than evident - in the smoggy, smelly skies above cities like Beijing, New Delhi and Jakarta. Thanks to new cars and power plants, air pollution is bad and getting worse in much of the world, and it's taking a major toll (,) on global health. How big? According to a new analysis published in the Lancet, more than 3.2 million people suffered deaths from air pollution in 2010, the largest number on record. That's up from 800,000 in 2000. And it's a regional problem: 65% of those deaths occurred in Asia, where the air is choked by diesel soot from cars and trucks, as well as the song from power plants and the dust from endless urban construction. In East Asia and China, 1.2 million people died, as well as another 712,000 in South Asia, including India. For the first time ever, air pollution is on the world's top - 10 list of killers, and it's moving up the ranks faster than any other factor. So how can air pollution be so damaging? It is the very finest soot - so small that it roots deep within the lungs and then enters the bloodstream - that contributes to most of the public - health toll of air pollution including death. Diesel soot, which can also cause cancer, is a major problem because it is concentrated in cities along transportation zones affecting overpopulated areas. It is thought to contribute to half the deaths from air pollution in urban centers. Fro example, 1 in 6 people in the U.S. live near a diesel - pollution hot spot like a rail yard, port terminal or freeway. We also know that air pollution may be linked to other non - deadly diseases. Fortunately in the U.S. and other developed nations, urban air is for the most part cleaner than it was 30 or 40 years ago, thanks to regulations and new technologies like the catalytic converters that reduce automobile emissions. Govemments are also pushing to make air cleaner - see the White House's move last week to further tighten soot standards. It's not perfect, but we've had much more success dealing with air pollution than climate change. Will developing nations like India eventually catch up? Hopefully - though the problem may get worse before it gets better. The good news is that it doesn't take a major technological advance to improve urban air. Switching from diesel fuel to unleaded helps, as do newer and cleaner cars which are less likely to send out pollutants. Power plants - even ones that burn mineral fuels like coal - can be fitted with pollution - control equipment that, at a price, will greatly reduce smog and other pollutants. But the best solutions may involve urban design. In the Guardian, John Vidal notes that Delhi now has 200 cars per 1,000 people, far more than much richer Asian cities like Hong Kong and Singapore. Developing cities will almost certainly see an increase in car ownership as residents become wealthier - and that doesn't have to mean deadly air pollution. Higher incomes should also lead to tougher environmental regulations, which is exactly what happened in the West. We can only hope it happens before the death toll from bad air gets even higher.
Question: What tends to give rise to the highest death toll according to the passage?
Options: (A) The lack of tight environmental protection standards. (B) The increasing numbers of the diesel cars and trucks. (C) The frighteningly high death rate from deadly cancer. (D) The world's serious air pollution such as soot and dust.

Ex Output:
D

Ex Input:
Article: When McKenna Pope, 13, went shopping for a Christmas gift for her little brother, she planned to buy him an Easy-Bake Oven, a toy that allows kids to bake treats. Her brother, Gavyn Boscio, 4, loves to cook. But McKenna changed her mind when she discovered that Hasbro, the toy company that produces the popular oven, only makes the toy in purple and pink--and only features girls on the box and in commercials. So instead of buying an oven, McKenna cooked up another plan. She started a campaign to get Hasbro to make a gender-neutral oven. "I don't want them to make a boys' Easy-Bake Oven and a girls' Easy-Bake Oven," McKenna, from Garfield, New Jersey, told the Associated Press. "I want them to make an Easy-Bake Oven for kids." The Easy-only Bake Oven was first introduced in 1963. At the time, the stereotype was that only women cooked. Today, that's changed, in part thanks to famous male chefs like, Bobby Flay, who used an Easy-Bake Oven when he was a kid. Over the years, Hasbro says the company has featured boys on the packaging and offered the product in several different color1 schemes. But this year, just the purple and pink model is available. McKenna wants that to change, and she's not alone. Her petition , posted on change.org, has received more than 45,000 signatures. By next summer, McKenna should have her wish. On December 17, Hasbro invited the New Jersey teen and her family to their headquarters in Pawtucket, Rhode Island, to meet with the Easy-Bake Oven team. They showed her a prototype, or model, of their newest Easy-Bake Oven, which is scheduled to hit stores in 2013. The new color1 scheme is black, silver and blue. The company also told McKenna they plan to feature boys in ads. McKenna was happy with what she saw at Hasbro. "They really met most or even all of what I wanted them to, and they really amazed me," McKenna said. She added that Gavyn thought the new design was "awesome".
Question: How did McKenna probably feel when she found out what kind of oven Hasbro produces? ks5u
Options: (A) Excited. (B) Interested. (C) Disappointed. (D) Relaxed.

Ex Output:
C