In this task, you're given an article and an answer. Your task is to generate the fill-in-the-blank question for this answer based on the given article. The blanks are always at the end of the question, and can be filled with more than one word or phrase.

Article: A four-year-old girl sees three biscuits divided between a stuffed crocodile and a teddy bear.The crocodile gets two; the bear one."Is that fair?" asks the experimenter.The girl judges that it is not."How about now?" asks the experimenter, breaking the bear's single biscuit in half.The girl cheers up: "Oh yes, now it's fair.They both have two." Strangely, children feel very strongly about fairness, even when they hardly understand it. Adults care about fairness too --- but how much? One way to find out is by using the ultimatum game, created by economist Werner Guth.Jack is given a pile of money and proposes how it should be divided with Jill.Jill can accept Jack's "ultimatum", otherwise the deal is off, and neither gets anything. Suppose Jack and Jill don't care about fairness, just about accumulating cash.Then Jack can offer Jill as little as he likes and Jill will still accept.After all, a little money is more than no money.But imagine, instead, that Jack and Jill both care only about fairness and that the fairest outcome is equality.Then Jack would offer Jill half the money; and Jill wouldn't accept otherwise. What happens when we ask people to play this game for real? It turns out that people value fairness a lot.Anyone offered less than 20-30% of the money is likely to reject it.Receiving an unfair offers makes us feel sick.Happily, most offers are pretty equitable; indeed, by far the most common is a 50-50 split. But children, and adults, also care about a very different sort of (un)fairness, namely cheating.Think how many games of snakes and ladders have ended in arguments when one child "accidentally" miscounts her moves and another child objects.But this sense of fairness isn't about equality of outcome: games inevitably have winners and losers.Here, fairness is about playing by the rules. Both fairness-as-equality and fairness-as-no-cheating matter.Which is more important: equality or no-cheating? I think the answer is neither.The national lottery , like other lotteries, certainly doesn't make the world more equal: a few people get rich and most people get nothing.Nevertheless, we hope, it is fair --- but what does this mean? The fairness-as-no-cheating viewpoint has a ready answer: a lottery is fair if it is conducted according to the "rules".But which rules? None of us has the slightest idea, I suspect.Suppose that buried in the small print at lottery HQ is a rule that forbids people with a particular surname (let's say, Moriarty).So a Ms Moriarty could buy a ticket each week for years without any chance of success. How would she react if she found out? Surely with anger: how dare the organisers let her play, week after week, without mentioning that she couldn't possibly win! She'd reasonably feel unfairly treated because _ . To protest against unfairness, then, is to make an accusation of bad faith.From this viewpoint, an equal split between the crocodile and the bear seems fair because (normally, at least), it is the only split they would both agree to.But were the girl to learn that the crocodile doesn't like biscuits or that the bear isn't hungry, I suspect she'd think it perfectly fair for one toy to take the whole.Inequality of biscuits (or anything else) isn't necessarily unfair, if both parties are happy.And the unfairness of cheating comes from the same source: we'd never accept that someone else can unilaterally violate agreements that we have all signed up to. So perhaps the four-year-old's intuitions about fairness is the beginnings of an understanding of negotiation.With a sense of fairness, people will have to make us acceptable offers (or we'll reject their ultimatums) and stick by the (reasonable) rules, or we'll be on the warpath.So a sense of fairness is crucial to effective negotiation; and negotiation, over toys, treats etc, is part of life.
Answer: Jill has no choice but to accept any amount of money
It can be inferred that in the ultimatum game, _ .

Article: Great white sharks! Just hearing that name _ . In reality, these big fish have more to fear from us than we do from them. For many years, people killed countless great white sharks in the waters around the United States. But thanks to conservation efforts, great whites are making a comeback in the U.S. Two recent studies show that the population of these sharks is rising along the east and west coast. Why is the growing population of a killer fish something to celebrate? "When you fish too many of them, you start to lose balance in the environment," says shark researcher Tobey Curtis. As the biggest killer, sharks help keep the populations of fish, seals, and other creatures they eat from growing too large. In spite of their importance, great white sharks had long been hunted for their meat and their fins . Then, in 1997, the U.S. government passed a law that didn't allow the hunting of great whites. Afterwards, the numbers of these sharks in the U.S. waters started to increase. The law wasn't the only thing that has helped great whites. Conservationists have also played a part in the sharks' comeback. The research group OCEARCH is using a method called tagging to help change people's attitudes about great white. They let the public follow each shark as it travels the world's oceans. OCEARCH also gives each tagged shark a name to help people form a closer connection with the big fish. The group's most well-known shark is named Katharine. She was tagged last year near Cape Cod, Massachusetts. Since then, thousands of people have tracked Katharine's movements on Twitter and the OCEARCH website. This helps people see sharks in a new way. Chris Fischer, the founder of OCEARCH believes learning to appreciate great whites will encourage people to do more to protect them.
Answer: seemed very helpful
The law passed in 1997 _ .

Article: Most nights I lie in bed, ready for an escape from myself, yet a streaming video of everything I ate, how I exercised, the activities of the day won't stop playing in my mind. I pause. I breathe. I try to relax once again, but it doesn't work. When I'm not exercising -- even if I've already exercised that day -- I'm consumed with anxiety about my next workout. Will something come up and make me miss the gym? What about holidays when the gym is closed? Exercise has become a disease; it even disguises (,) itself as the cure. If I don't have _ as an escape, then what's left to hold me together? Working out feels like the only way to calm myself, but as soon as I leave the gym or finish a walk, the whole cycle starts over again. As you might have guessed by now, I suffer from depression and OCD . I'm a highly-educated adult woman who knows the risks of this behavior, and yet I can't stop. As a society, we're told over and over that it's important to exercise. That's what makes it so easy to keep this addiction a secret; it's not as obvious as lighting up a cigarette. You can continue to feed your addiction under the guise that you're just being "healthy". I not only have to fight the nonstop thoughts in my head but also the "more exercise is better" messages I receive from the media every day. For me, exercise has become a drug, which is a way to numb the pain I might feel. I wonder what it would be like to "have the problem" of not wanting to go to the gym. It still feels very far away. Yet I know I can be stronger than this. I can break the cycle I'm in. I can tell my story so as to give up a piece of the secrecy that keeps me sick. Because no, you don't want my problem. And finally, neither do I.
Answer: can't fall asleep
When the author goes to bed, she _ .