input: Rahul Dravid has had a mixed record when leading India in Tests.  One of Dravid's most debated decisions was taken in March 2004, when he was standing in as the captain for injured Sourav Ganguly. India's first innings was declared at a point when Sachin Tendulkar was at 194 runs not out with 16 overs remaining on Day 2.In this test match Sehwag scored triple century first time. He became the first Indian to score triple century in test with a score of 309.  In March 2006, India lost the Mumbai Test, giving England its first Test victory in India since 1985, enabling it to draw the series 1-1. The defeat in Mumbai was arguably the result of Dravid's decision to bowl first on a flat dry pitch, which later deteriorated and ended with an Indian collapse in the run chase. Coincidentally, it was Dravid's 100th test match in which the Indians were all out for 100 runs in the second innings.  After India failed to qualify for the final of the DLF Cup, Dravid, the skipper, was criticised by former all-rounder Ravi Shastri who said that he was not assertive enough and let Greg Chappell make too many decisions. When asked for a response, Dravid said that Shastri, while a 'fair critic', was 'not privy' to the internal decision-making process of the team.  He was criticised by Vijay Mallya for not picking the team with right balance after his then IPL team Royal Challengers Bangalore finished seventh out of the eight teams that participated in the 2008 season.

Answer this question "What was the issue with this"
output: Coincidentally, it was Dravid's 100th test match in which the Indians were all out for 100 runs in the second innings.

input: In 1774, Burke's Speech to the Electors at Bristol at the Conclusion of the Poll was noted for its defence of the principles of representative government against the notion that elected officials should merely be delegates:  ... it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But his unbiased opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.  Political scientist Hanna Pitkin points out that Burke linked the interest of the district with the proper behaviour of its elected official, explaining, "Burke conceives of broad, relatively fixed interest, few in number and clearly defined, of which any group or locality has just one. These interests are largely economic or associated with particular localities whose livelihood they characterize, in his over-all prosperity they involve."  Burke was a leading sceptic with respect to democracy. While admitting that theoretically, in some cases it might be desirable, he insisted a democratic government in Britain in his day would not only be inept, but also oppressive. He opposed democracy for three basic reasons. First, government required a degree of intelligence and breadth of knowledge of the sort that occurred rarely among the common people. Second, he thought that if they had the vote, common people had dangerous and angry passions that could be aroused easily by demagogues; he feared that the authoritarian impulses that could be empowered by these passions would undermine cherished traditions and established religion, leading to violence and confiscation of property. Third, Burke warned that democracy would create a tyranny over unpopular minorities, who needed the protection of the upper classes.

Answer this question "How did he use these thoughts in his career?"
output: 

input: Arranged marriages still happen in the Arab world. The traditions of conservative Arab society and Islam forbid couples to have sex or socialize before marriage (however forced marriages are against Islamic teachings). Therefore, when it is time for a young man to get married, his family will look around to identify a number of potential brides.  Arranged marriage is a tradition of Arab nations of West Asia and North Africa, but with the difference that between 17% to majority of all marriages in these countries are also consanguineous marriages. In Saudi Arabia, majority (65%+) of all marriages are endogamous and consanguineous arranged marriages. More than 40% of all marriages are endogamous and consanguineous in Iraq, Jordan, Syria, Yemen, Kuwait, UAE, Oman, Sudan, Libya and Mauritania; and over 1 in 5 marriages in Egypt and Algeria. Among these Arab people, arranged marriages include endogamous and non-consanguineous marriages, and therefore exceed the above observed rates of endogamous and consanguineous marriages. Arab Christians such as Coptic Christians in Egypt. Marriage was a central feature of traditional Aboriginal societies. Freedom of marriage was restricted to ensure children were produced according to the correct family groups and affiliations and avoid marriages with certain close relatives or marriages with any one outside the group. Nevertheless, opinions vary on whether the phenomenon should be seen as exclusively based on Islamic practices as a 1992 study among Arabs in Jordan did not show significant differences between Christian Arabs or Muslim Arabs when comparing the occurrence of consanguinity.  Traditionally, the process of investigation takes into consideration the girls' physical beauty, her behavior, her cleanliness, her education and finally her qualities as a housewife. In carrying out this traditional investigation parents also take the behaviour of the prospective bride's family into account.  The first meeting usually takes place between the bride, groom, and their respective mothers. They meet, usually in a public place or in the bride's house, and get to know each other. The bride, groom, and their chaperones will typically sit separately, but within sight of each other, in order to get to know each other. Nowadays, the man might suggest to his family who he would like them to consider, and it may be that the man and the woman already know each other. It is also nowadays common in urban families for a bride and the groom to agree to marry before the groom approaches the bride's family for their permission.

Answer this question "Why did arranged marriages start?"
output:
The traditions of conservative Arab society and Islam forbid couples to have sex or socialize before marriage (however forced marriages are against Islamic teachings).