input: OPTIONS:
- He is a peer
- He is a reiviewer
- He is a writer
- not enough information Now, answer this question: I am currently waiting for peer reviews of two books I've worked on: one sole-authored, one co-authored. We don't talk much about the experience of waiting for reviews, and it's not something that appears to have been researched. Yet it's something everyone doing academic work has to go through and it may be bad for our mental health. I'm finding it particularly difficult at the moment because a lot rides on these reviews. The sole-authored book, which is on a contentious topic, has already had one set of reviews. Reviewer 1 was utterly damning, saying "I couldn't find anything to praise". Luckily, Reviewers 2 and 3 were more measured, offering both praise and constructive criticism, and their input helped me to revise and strengthen the typescript. However, in the process, my editor and I realised that we needed further reviews from people with a particular kind of specialist knowledge. My editor approached around ten potential reviewers, but only one agreed to do the job. So I'm gibbering what if that person agrees with Reviewer 1? The co-authored book is in a contentious format. My co-authors and I decided that I would be the person to liaise with publishers, as I have form in this process. The last time I liaised with academic publishers for a co-authored book was in the early 2000s, and I'd forgotten how heavily responsible it makes me feel. Fortunately, I've found a publisher that is interested and has sent the book out for reviews, to two professional academics and two students. This is great and terrifying but at least there are four reviewers. Even so, what if they all think it's rubbish? In many ways I love the peer review system. I welcome feedback on my writing, and I'm not at all averse to constructive criticism. I am by no means arrogant enough to think I can write a good book without input from others. Yet peer review, as a process, is fraught with uncertainty. Comments may not be constructive, or may not come at all. They may be positive, or negative, or in between, or a mixture. Question: What is probably true about the co-author? === The answer to the above question is
A:
output: He is a writer

The Trump administration's recent airstrikes in Syria just the latest action in a long-running conflict that has challenged U.S. presidents of both parties has prompted a new round of questions on Capitol Hill. Lawmakers are asking where last week's strikes fit in the larger U.S. strategy in response to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and for greater clarity to prevent an escalation of the conflict. "There needs to be a comprehensive strategy here laid out by the administration for Congress in terms of the options to pursue because of the urgency," House Foreign Affairs Chairman Ed Royce said during a House panel Wednesday. "Does the administration support imposing costs on the Russians and the Iranians for their role in the Assad regime's war crimes against its own people?" In his speech announcing the air strikes to the American people Friday, President Trump said the United States is "prepared to sustain this response until the Syrian regime stops its use of prohibited chemical agents." But later Friday, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said the latest action against Assad was a "one-time shot." Trump ordered Friday's strikes just weeks after saying the U.S. would "be coming out of Syria like very soon," reflecting changes in the administration's posture in response to Assad's reported use of prohibited chemical agents. "We're at a real risk here of conducting strikes without any clear strategy," Brian Katulis, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, told VOA. "The Trump administration for the past several months has issued contradictory statements, with former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and some diplomats saying that the U.S. troops inside Syria, in eastern Syria, would be dedicated to also countering Iran inside Syria. The Pentagon was saying something completely different defeating ISIS and continuing that campaign," he said. Trump administration officials told a hearing of the House Foreign Affairs committee Wednesday the president's goals in Syria remain clear. Question: After Wednesdays hearing, Trump will have: === The answer to the above question is

OPTIONS:
- gone golfing with his children
- not enough information
- clarified his plans in regards to Syria
- gone on a vacation with Melania

Answer: clarified his plans in regards to Syria

In a race with national implications, Democrat Conor Lamb declared victory in a very close special congressional election held Tuesday in Pennsylvania. Officially, the race has not been called for Lamb, who holds a lead of 627 votes over Republican candidate Rick Saccone, a strong supporter of President Donald Trump. It's possible Saccone and his supporters may request a recount, given the close vote. Even though Lamb's apparent victory is narrow, the Pennsylvania result could broaden implications for Republicans looking to defend their congressional majorities in the House of Representatives and Senate in the November midterm elections. Lamb ran surprisingly strong in a district that Trump carried by nearly 20 points, campaigning as a moderate Democrat. "We fought to find common ground, and we found it, almost everywhere. Democrats, Republicans, independents each of us, Americans," Lamb told supporters early Wednesday. Saccone was not ready to concede the race. "We are going to fight all the way to the end. You know I never give up." The Pennsylvania race follows Democratic victories late last year in Virginia and Alabama, fueled in large part by what some analysts see as an anti-Trump theme that continues to build. "The opposition to Donald Trump is as intense as I have seen since the last year of [Richard] Nixon's presidency," said University of Virginia political scientist Larry Sabato via Skype. "It is so intense, it is so hot, that it could result in a much bigger turnover than we think in the midterm elections to the Democrats and away from the Republicans." Saccone cast himself as the president's "wingman," and Trump campaigned on his behalf at a rally last Saturday when Trump urged Republicans to get out and vote. "We want to keep the agenda, the make America great, going. You have got to get him in. This is a very important race," Trump said. Democrats were thrilled with the result, while some Republicans saw the race as a "wake-up" call for what could be a devastating midterm in November. Question: Rick Saccone likely believes that the congressional election: === The answer to the above question is
OPTIONS:
- has been rigged against his favor.
- not enough information
- has still not decisively determined a victor.
- has been a losing situation from the beginning.

Answer:
has still not decisively determined a victor.