input: After he had been coaching at Dundee for 18 months, the club's local rivals Dundee United offered McLean the position of manager to replace the retiring Jerry Kerr in December 1971. He accepted the offer and began his managerial career at the age of 34. McLean immediately started a co-ordinated youth policy which was to produce many fine young players over the two decades which followed. In the short term, he used his knowledge of the Scottish scene to buy experienced players who would allow him to re-shape both the squad and the style of play in line with his approach to coaching.  Initially, the club's league form was average, remaining mostly mid-table for the next few years. McLean's first hint of the success he would later achieve was leading the club to its first Scottish Cup final in 1974 and, despite defeat, it proved an important psychological step in McLean's and the club's development. The success of the Cup run was built upon the following season with a finish of fourth place, the club's best finish in the First Division before league restructuring.  As McLean's youth policy began to bear fruit, the first of a number of talented young players began to emerge. McLean decided that his team should mount a challenge for the League championship in 1978-79, something of which the club, who had long lived in the shadow of McLean's former employers and rivals Dundee, had never previously proved capable of but after a poor finish in the first season of the new Premier Division, United started to prove that they were serious contenders for domestic honours.  In December 1979, McLean guided his team to triumph in the League Cup and retained it a year later. At the same time as the club was enjoying a high standing Scottish football, McLean was gradually building the club's reputation in Europe, with wins over sides like Barcelona, AS Monaco, Borussia Monchengladbach, PSV Eindhoven, Anderlecht and Werder Bremen.

Answer this question "How did his team do"
output: McLean immediately started a co-ordinated youth policy which was to produce many fine young players over the two decades which followed.

input: Rawls derives two principles of justice from the original position. The first of these is the Liberty Principle, which establishes equal basic liberties for all citizens. 'Basic' liberty entails the (familiar in the liberal tradition) freedoms of conscience, association and expression as well as democratic rights; Rawls also includes a personal property right, but this is defended in terms of moral capacities and self-respect, rather than an appeal to a natural right of self-ownership (this distinguishes Rawls's account from the classical liberalism of John Locke and the libertarianism of Robert Nozick).  Rawls argues that a second principle of equality would be agreed upon to guarantee liberties that represent meaningful options for all in society and ensure distributive justice. For example, formal guarantees of political voice and freedom of assembly are of little real worth to the desperately poor and marginalized in society. Demanding that everyone have exactly the same effective opportunities in life would almost certainly offend the very liberties that are supposedly being equalized. Nonetheless, we would want to ensure at least the "fair worth" of our liberties: wherever one ends up in society, one wants life to be worth living, with enough effective freedom to pursue personal goals. Thus participants would be moved to affirm a two-part second principle comprising Fair Equality of Opportunity and the famous (and controversial) difference principle. This second principle ensures that those with comparable talents and motivation face roughly similar life chances and that inequalities in society work to the benefit of the least advantaged.  Rawls held that these principles of justice apply to the "basic structure" of fundamental social institutions (such as the judiciary, the economic structure and the political constitution), a qualification that has been the source of some controversy and constructive debate (see the work of Gerald Cohen).  Rawls further argued that these principles were to be 'lexically ordered' to award priority to basic liberties over the more equality-oriented demands of the second principle. This has also been a topic of much debate among moral and political philosophers.  Finally, Rawls took his approach as applying in the first instance to what he called a "well-ordered society ... designed to advance the good of its members and effectively regulated by a public conception of justice". In this respect, he understood justice as fairness as a contribution to "ideal theory", the determination of "principles that characterize a well-ordered society under favorable circumstances". Much recent work in political philosophy has asked what justice as fairness might dictate (or indeed, whether it is very useful at all) for problems of "partial compliance" under "nonideal theory".

Answer this question "What is the difference principle?"
output: those with comparable talents and motivation face roughly similar life chances and that inequalities in society work to the benefit of the least advantaged.

input: After Annapurna, Lafaille resolved never to climb again, but during his long physical and psychological recovery he began scrambling in the foothills of the Alps, and eventually returned to extreme climbing. In the Alps he carried out an enchainment of nine north faces in fifteen days, skiing from mountain to mountain, and made the first ascent of the Lafaille Route on the Petit Dru, which at the time was considered the hardest route in the Alps, but his most important climbs were in the Himalaya.  A year after his accident on Annapurna, he climbed Cho Oyu, and then in 1994 he climbed a new route, solo, on the north face of Shishapangma. It was the first of many solo ascents of 8000 meter peaks, including consecutive ascents of Gasherbrum I and Gasherbrum II in four days in 1996, and Manaslu in 2001.  Annapurna remained an obsession for Lafaille, and he would later call his autobiography Prisoner of Annapurna. He returned to the mountain three times. The first time he made a solo attempt on the British line on the South Face, which failed due to poor snow conditions. In 1998 he returned to the same route with a larger team, but the expedition was abandoned when a team member was killed in an avalanche. He finally reached the summit in 2002 with Alberto Inurrategi via the long, committing east ridge.  By 2003 Lafaille had decided to try to climb all fourteen 8000-metre peaks; but unlike many of the mountaineers who take on this goal, he had no desire simply to climb them by well established routes, in large expeditions and with bottled oxygen. He preferred to continue trying to achieve new routes or solo ascents, or to climb in the more demanding winter season. In 2003 he climbed Nanga Parbat, Dhaulagiri (solo) and Broad Peak in a two-month period. The last of these nearly killed him when he fell into a crevasse and then developed high altitude pulmonary edema. He was rescued by Ed Viesturs and Denis Urubko.  In December 2004 he made a solo ascent of Shishapangma. It was intended to be the first winter ascent of the mountain, but he reached the summit on 11 December which was seen as too early to be classed as a true winter ascent. By this point he had completed eleven of the fourteen peaks, and needed Everest, Kanchenjunga and Makalu to complete his goal.

Answer this question "Who rescued him and how?"
output:
He was rescued by Ed Viesturs and Denis Urubko.