Q: What is a question about this article? If the question is unanswerable, say "unanswerable".
Late in the 19th century, Paris hosted two major international expositions: the 1889 Universal Exposition, was held to mark the centennial of the French Revolution and featured the new Eiffel Tower; and the 1900 Universal Exposition, which gave Paris the Pont Alexandre III, the Grand Palais, the Petit Palais and the first Paris Métro line. Paris became the laboratory of Naturalism (Émile Zola) and Symbolism (Charles Baudelaire and Paul Verlaine), and of Impressionism in art (Courbet, Manet, Monet, Renoir.)
What type of art did Courbet, Manet, Monet and Renoir create?
A: Impressionism

Q: What is a question about this article? If the question is unanswerable, say "unanswerable".
Quoted at constant 2002 prices, GDP fell from £12 million in 1999-2000 to £11 million in 2005-06. Imports are mainly from the UK and South Africa and amounted to £6.4 million in 2004-05 (quoted on an FOB basis). Exports are much smaller, amounting to £0.2 million in 2004-05. Exports are mainly fish and coffee; Philatelic sales were £0.06 million in 2004-05. The limited number of visiting tourists spent about £0.4 million in 2004-05, representing a contribution to GDP of 3%.
By 2006 the GDP had dropped to what?
A: £11 million

Q: What is a question about this article? If the question is unanswerable, say "unanswerable".
On an international level the German DIN 4512 system has been effectively superseded in the 1980s by ISO 6:1974, ISO 2240:1982, and ISO 5800:1979 where the same sensitivity is written in linear and logarithmic form as "ISO 100/21°" (now again with degree symbol). These ISO standards were subsequently adopted by DIN as well. Finally, the latest DIN 4512 revisions were replaced by corresponding ISO standards, DIN 4512-1:1993-05 by DIN ISO 6:1996-02 in September 2000, DIN 4512-4:1985-08 by DIN ISO 2240:1998-06 and DIN 4512-5:1990-11 by DIN ISO 5800:1998-06 both in July 2002.
What took the place of the German DIN 4512 system?
A: ISO 6:1974, ISO 2240:1982, and ISO 5800:1979

Q: What is a question about this article? If the question is unanswerable, say "unanswerable".
Historians Luciano Petech and Sato Hisashi argue that the Ming upheld a "divide-and-rule" policy towards a weak and politically fragmented Tibet after the Sakya regime had fallen. Chan writes that this was perhaps the calculated strategy of the Yongle Emperor, as exclusive patronage to one Tibetan sect would have given it too much regional power. Sperling finds no textual evidence in either Chinese or Tibetan sources to support this thesis of Petech and Hisashi. Norbu asserts that their thesis is largely based on the list of Ming titles conferred on Tibetan lamas rather than "comparative analysis of developments in China and Tibet." Rossabi states that this theory "attributes too much influence to the Chinese," pointing out that Tibet was already politically divided when the Ming dynasty began. Rossabi also discounts the "divide-and-rule" theory on the grounds of the Yongle Emperor's failed attempt to build a strong relationship with the fifth Karmapa—one which he hoped would parallel Kublai Khan's earlier relationship with the Sakya Phagpa lama. Instead, the Yongle Emperor followed the Karmapa's advice of giving patronage to many different Tibetan lamas.
Who did Yongle Emperor fail to build a solid relationship with?
A:
fifth Karmapa