[System] You are an English linguist performing fine-grained Word Sense Disambiguation. WordNet glosses are schematic. Use the sentence context, the examples, and the synonyms to choose the best indexed sense. Do not hedge. Choose the single best indexed sense.

[User]
Target lemma: making
Target surface form: making
Context:
First, why ticket splitting has increased and taken the peculiar pattern that it has over the past half century: Prior to the election of Franklin Roosevelt as president and the advent of the New Deal, government occupied a much smaller role in society and the prisoner's dilemma problem confronting voters in races for Congress was considerably less severe. Second, it explains why voters hold Congress in disdain but generally love their own congressional representatives: Any individual legislator's constituents appreciate the specific benefits that the legislator wins for them but not the overall cost associated with every other legislator doing likewise for his own constituency. Third, the theory suggests why legislators who pay too much attention to national policy making relative to local benefit-seeking have lower security in office. For example, first-term - term members of the House, once the most vulnerable of incumbents, have become virtually immune to defeat. The one exception to this recent trend was the defeat of 13 of the 52 freshman Republicans brought into office in 1980 by the Reagan revolution and running for re-election in 1982. Because these freshmen placed far more emphasis on their partisan role -- spreading the Reagan revolution -- in national policy <t>making</t>, they were more vulnerable to defeat. Fourth, the theory indicates why the Republican Party may have a difficult time attracting viable candidates for congressional office.

Candidate senses:
1. sense_key=making%1:04:00:: | definition=the act that results in something coming to be | synonyms=devising, fashioning | examples=the devising of plans; the fashioning of pots and pans
2. sense_key=making%1:07:00:: | definition=an attribute that must be met or complied with and that fits a person for something | synonyms=qualification | examples=her qualifications for the job are excellent; one of the qualifications for admission is an academic degree
3. sense_key=making%1:06:00:: | definition=(usually plural) the components needed for making or doing something | examples=the recipe listed all the makings for a chocolate cake

Instructions:
1. Choose the single best indexed sense for the target word in context.
2. WordNet glosses are schematic; use the context, synonyms, and examples together.
3. Do not answer with a WordNet sense key.
4. Return only a JSON object exactly like {"sense_index": 3}.

reasoning_content: We need answer JSON only. Need choose sense for "making" in phrase "national policy making". Context: legislators pay attention to national policy making relative to local benefit-seeking. "policy making" = act of creating/formulating policy. Candidate sense 1: act that results in something coming to be; synonyms devising, fashioning. That fits. Sense 2 qualification no. Sense 3 components (makings) no. So index 1. Need output {"sense_index": 1}. Ensure only JSON.

provider: Cloudflare


attempt_kind: initial

status: success

[System] You are an English linguist performing fine-grained Word Sense Disambiguation. WordNet glosses are schematic. Use the sentence context, the examples, and the synonyms to choose the best indexed sense. Do not hedge. Choose the single best indexed sense.

[User]
Target lemma: indicate
Target surface form: indicates
Context:
Second, it explains why voters hold Congress in disdain but generally love their own congressional representatives: Any individual legislator's constituents appreciate the specific benefits that the legislator wins for them but not the overall cost associated with every other legislator doing likewise for his own constituency. Third, the theory suggests why legislators who pay too much attention to national policy making relative to local benefit-seeking have lower security in office. For example, first-term - term members of the House, once the most vulnerable of incumbents, have become virtually immune to defeat. The one exception to this recent trend was the defeat of 13 of the 52 freshman Republicans brought into office in 1980 by the Reagan revolution and running for re-election in 1982. Because these freshmen placed far more emphasis on their partisan role -- spreading the Reagan revolution -- in national policy making, they were more vulnerable to defeat. Fourth, the theory <t>indicates</t> why the Republican Party may have a difficult time attracting viable candidates for congressional office. Potential candidates may be discouraged from running less by the congressional salary than by the prospect of defeat at the hands of a Democratic opponent.

Candidate senses:
1. sense_key=indicate%2:32:01:: | definition=be a signal for or a symptom of | synonyms=bespeak, betoken, point, signal | examples=These symptoms indicate a serious illness; Her behavior points to a severe neurosis
2. sense_key=indicate%2:32:03:: | definition=indicate a place, direction, person, or thing; either spatially or figuratively | synonyms=point, designate, show | examples=I showed the customer the glove section; He pointed to the empty parking space
3. sense_key=indicate%2:32:00:: | definition=to state or express briefly | examples=indicated his wishes in a letter
4. sense_key=indicate%2:32:02:: | definition=give evidence of | synonyms=argue | examples=The evidence argues for your claim; The results indicate the need for more work
5. sense_key=indicate%2:32:04:: | definition=suggest the necessity of an intervention; in medicine | synonyms=suggest | examples=Tetracycline is indicated in such cases

Instructions:
1. Choose the single best indexed sense for the target word in context.
2. WordNet glosses are schematic; use the context, synonyms, and examples together.
3. Do not answer with a WordNet sense key.
4. Return only a JSON object exactly like {"sense_index": 3}.

finish_reason: stop

role: assistant

reasoning_content:
We need answer with JSON only. Let's analyze target "indicates" context. Sentence: "Fourth, the theory <t>indicates</t> why the Republican Party may have a difficult time attracting viable candidates for congressional office." We need best sense among five. Definitions:
1. be a signal for or a symptom of; synonyms bespeak, betoken, point, signal. Example: symptoms indicate illness.
2. indicate a place/direction/person/thing; point, designate, show.
3. to state or express briefly. Example: indicated his wishes in a letter.
4. give evidence of; synonyms argue. Example: results indicate the need for more work.
5. suggest necessity of intervention in medicine. Not relevant.

"Theory indicates why..." Theory gives evidence/argument for why something is the case. Sense 4 "give evidence of" seems suitable; the theory indicates (suggests/evidences) a conclusion. Sense 1 "be a signal/symptom of" also plausible but more about symptoms/signs. In academic prose, "the theory indicates why" means theory suggests/evidences explanation. Sense 4 fits best. The example "The results indicate the need for more work" parallels "theory indicates why..."

Need return only JSON {"sense_index": 4}.

format: unknown

native_finish_reason: stop

provider: AtlasCloud

currency: USD


[System] You are an English linguist performing fine-grained Word Sense Disambiguation. WordNet glosses are schematic. Use the sentence context, the examples, and the synonyms to choose the best indexed sense. Do not hedge. Choose the single best indexed sense.

[User]
Target lemma: attract
Target surface form: attracting
Context:
Second, it explains why voters hold Congress in disdain but generally love their own congressional representatives: Any individual legislator's constituents appreciate the specific benefits that the legislator wins for them but not the overall cost associated with every other legislator doing likewise for his own constituency. Third, the theory suggests why legislators who pay too much attention to national policy making relative to local benefit-seeking have lower security in office. For example, first-term - term members of the House, once the most vulnerable of incumbents, have become virtually immune to defeat. The one exception to this recent trend was the defeat of 13 of the 52 freshman Republicans brought into office in 1980 by the Reagan revolution and running for re-election in 1982. Because these freshmen placed far more emphasis on their partisan role -- spreading the Reagan revolution -- in national policy making, they were more vulnerable to defeat. Fourth, the theory indicates why the Republican Party may have a difficult time <t>attracting</t> viable candidates for congressional office. Potential candidates may be discouraged from running less by the congressional salary than by the prospect of defeat at the hands of a Democratic opponent.

Candidate senses:
1. sense_key=attract%2:35:00:: | definition=direct toward itself or oneself by means of some psychological power or physical attributes | synonyms=pull, pull in, draw, draw in | examples=Her good looks attract the stares of many men; The ad pulled in many potential customers
2. sense_key=attract%2:37:00:: | definition=be attractive to | synonyms=appeal | examples=The idea of a vacation appeals to me; The beautiful garden attracted many people
3. sense_key=attract%2:35:01:: | definition=exert a force on (a body) causing it to approach or prevent it from moving away | examples=the gravitational pull of a planet attracts other bodies

Instructions:
1. Choose the single best indexed sense for the target word in context.
2. WordNet glosses are schematic; use the context, synonyms, and examples together.
3. Do not answer with a WordNet sense key.
4. Return only a JSON object exactly like {"sense_index": 3}.

reasoning_content:
We need pick single best indexed sense for target lemma 'attract' surface 'attracting' in context. Let's parse carefully.

Context passage: theory indicates why Republican Party may have difficult time <t>attracting</t> viable candidates for congressional office. Potential candidates may be discouraged from running less by salary than by prospect of defeat.

Candidate senses:
1. direct toward itself or oneself by means of psychological power or physical attributes; synonyms pull etc. examples: good looks attract stares; ad pulled in customers. This is transitive: attract X: draw candidates toward itself? It means cause candidates to come toward the party.
2. be attractive to; synonyms appeal. example: idea appeals to me; garden attracted many people. This is more semantic: X attracts Y = Y is attracted to X. But still transitive. The distinction between sense 1 and 2 is subtle. In WN: attract (cause to move toward) vs. attract (be attractive to)? Let's recall WordNet synsets for verb.attract: (1) attract, pull, pull in, draw, draw in: direct toward itself or oneself by means of some psychological power or physical attributes. (2) attract, appeal: be attractive to. (3) attract: exert force on (a body) causing it to approach or prevent it from moving away.

In context: Republican Party has a difficult time attracting viable candidates. Means drawing/recruiting viable candidates to them. The party's appeal/policies draw candidates. Which sense better? Both could fit. We need disambiguate.

Sense 1 examples focus: "Her good looks attract the stares of many men" - direct attention toward herself by psychological power. "The ad pulled in many potential customers" - attract customers to business.

Sense 2 examples focus: "The idea of a vacation appeals to me" / "The beautiful garden attracted many people" - be attractive to. This is likely attraction in terms of appeal, not pulling by force. The garden does not pull people physically; it is attractive. But sense 1 also can include physical attributes. Hmm.

In WN, attract (appeal) is an antonym? Actually "attract" vs "repel" as antonym? Let's recall WordNet definitions:
- attract v 1 direct toward itself or oneself by means of some psychological power or physical attributes "Her good looks attract the stares of many men"; "The ad pulled in many potential customers"; "This pianist pulls huge crowds" . troponyms: allure, bait, beckon, bewitch, captivate, catch, charm, draw, enchant, entrance, fascinate, tug, magnetize, mesmerize, wile, invite, solicit, interest.
- attract v 2 be attractive to "The idea of a vacation appeals to me"; "The beautiful garden attracted many people".
- attract v 3 exert a force on (physics).

What's subtle difference? Sense2 is intransitive? Definition "be attractive to" can be used transitively: "X attracts Y" = "Y is attracted to X". Sense1 is causative: direct toward itself by psychological/physical power. In sense1, subject uses power to draw object; in sense2, subject is attractive to object.

The sentence: "Republican Party may have difficult time attracting viable candidates" can be interpreted as recruiting/drawing candidates to become Republicans. That's like cause candidates to come toward it. Sense1? However "attracting viable candidates" idiomatically means being attractive to candidates, not physically dragging them. The party's attributes appeal to candidates enough to run. Sense2 examples: beautiful garden attracted many people. "attracting viable candidates" similarly. But we need decide which is best in WordNet indexing.

Let's analyze more thoroughly.

The clause: "why the Republican Party may have a difficult time attracting viable candidates for congressional office." It's about who will run as candidates; the party needs to attract candidates. Most likely this is about the party being appealing to candidates. Is that sense1 or sense2? WordNet sense2 definition is "be attractive to", which might be used for things/ideas appealing to people. Sense1 includes doing something to draw them in, a more active process. In the political science context, the theory says candidates are discouraged by prospect of defeat, so the party can't attract candidates because candidates are not drawn to running due to possible defeat. Is it active pulling/recruiting by the party, or attractiveness of office? Phrase "attracting viable candidates" = the party's ability to draw in/gain viable candidates.

Let's see if WN examples for sense2: "The beautiful garden attracted many people". Here garden's beauty appeals to people making them come. This seems like the closest analogy: the party's attributes attract candidates. But "attract" with people? The garden example shows people are attracted to a place. The Republican Party example shows candidates are attracted to the party/office. That is sense2 (appeal). But sense1 "The ad pulled in many potential customers" is also about attracting people to product. The difference may be more nuanced: sense2 is stative/characteristic; sense1 is dynamic action.

In polysemy literature, "attract" has two main senses: (a) cause to be drawn near physically or by psychological force; (b) arouse interest/appeal to. Which one? Here candidates run because of the party's attractiveness; not necessarily physically moving near. That sounds like appeal.

Let's inspect candidate definitions and synonyms. Sense1 synonyms: pull, pull in, draw, draw in. These fit "attracting candidates" (drawing them in, pulling them in). Sense2 synonyms: appeal. "The Republican Party appealing to candidates." "attracting viable candidates" could be synonymous with "appealing to viable candidates." The phrase is transitive.

Both 1 and 2 are transitive verb senses. How to choose? Need to use context. "Potential candidates may be discouraged from running less by the congressional salary than by the prospect of defeat at the hands of a Democratic opponent." The theory says candidate running decision depends on expected success/salary. So the Republican Party attracts candidates by being appealing (because salary, chance of winning). It's about candidate's attraction to running for office under Republican label due to prospect of defeat. This aligns "attract" in sense of "appeal to" as candidates are attracted by party's electoral prospects.

But "attract" in sense 1 direct toward itself by psychological power can also align; the party draws candidates with promise of success.

Maybe WordNet distinguishes based on direct object inanimate? Let's search memory: In WordNet, "attract" sense 2 examples "The beautiful garden attracted many people." People are drawn to the garden. Sense1 example "This pianist pulls huge crowds." That is also about people. So object people can be either.

Need to infer which synset more likely for 'attracting viable candidates.' Let's see if WordNet sense1's troponyms include "recruit, invite"? It includes "invite" (invite someone to participate? Actually "invite" sense: ask someone in a friendly way to do something; "request the pleasure of someone's company"? There is a sense of allure/influence). Sense2 may have no synonyms except appeal, be attractive to.

The phrase "difficult time attracting" implies ongoing effort/ability. The Republican Party is actively trying to attract viable candidates. Sense1 is more active: direct toward itself by power. Sense2 is more stative: X is attractive to Y; here party's opportunity is attractive. But in a difficult time, maybe they actively pull/draw candidates. Still, "attract" with the phrase "viable candidates" like "The business is having difficulty attracting skilled workers" – would that be sense1 or sense2? Common usage: the job does not appeal to skilled workers. But wordnet indexing? We can consider semantically:

Sense1: A attracts B if A exerts a pull (physical or psychological) causing B to move toward it. For people: e.g., "The ad pulled in many potential customers." The ad exerts influence. Sense2: A attracts B if A is attractive to B; B is drawn to A due to attraction.

In "Republican Party attracting viable candidates", the party is attractive to candidates (sense2). If they are recruiting actively, one might say "recruit" not "attract". "Have a difficult time attracting" is common: it means being unable to be sufficiently appealing to candidates. So sense2 likely.

But let's not decide too fast. Need examine if sense3 is physical force. Not here (gravity). So between 1 and 2.

Context: "the theory indicates why the Republican Party may have a difficult time <t>attracting</t> viable candidates for congressional office. Potential candidates may be discouraged from running less by the congressional salary than by the prospect of defeat..."

This is about office security. National policy making reduces security in office; candidates are risk-averse; party has difficult time attracting viable candidates. The "attract" here is due to expected utility (salary vs defeat). It's being attractive to rational candidates, not direct action.

The WordNet gloss for sense1: "direct toward itself or oneself by means of some psychological power or physical attributes". The party's candidates are not being physically or psychologically pulled by party attributes? Actually they could be psychologically influenced by desire to win office. Sense2: "be attractive to". This matches candidates being attracted to the office.

Let's search mental corpus: WordNet example "The beautiful garden attracted many people" is like a feature appeals. In the text, "attracting viable candidates" would likely be annotated with sense 2 in standard WSD datasets? I can recall WSD for "attract" sentences. E.g., "The project attracted many students" maybe sense 1? Let's recall: In SemCor or other sense-tagged corpora, "attract" sense 1 appears for markets attract investors, magnets attract iron filings, drugs attract users? Hmm.

Let's reason more formally using WordNet sense relations. Sense 1 synonyms: pull/draw. Hypernyms likely "pull" (move something by pulling?). Actually verb group with "drag, pull, draw". The definition mentions "direct toward itself" (caused motion). "attract" in sense 1 is a hyponym of "pull"? In WordNet, "pull, draw" are hypernyms? The relevant hypernym may be "draw, pull" (cause to move in a certain direction by exerting a force). For sense 2, hypernym is "appeal" and maybe "interest"? Definition "be attractive to" is a stative relation. The two senses are both hypernyms of different verbs.

In context, candidates are not physically moved; attraction is metaphorical (candidates deciding to run). Whether motion sense or appealing sense? WordNet distinguishes physical/psychological power (sense1) vs be attractive to (sense2). "attracting viable candidates" is about causing candidates to come/join. It's more like pull/draw them in. But "be attractive to" includes causing people to come because of attractiveness.

Maybe sense2 specifically is used when the subject is something that has appeal/interest (garden, idea), while sense1 is used with subject using psychological/physical power (good looks, ad). For "The ad pulled in many potential customers", that is sense1; ad uses persuasive power. For "The beautiful garden attracted many people", it's sense2; garden is attractive. Which is more analogous to Republican Party? The party's attractiveness to candidates due to chance of winning? But the passage says "have a difficult time attracting viable candidates"—maybe active effort akin to ad? It does not specify active recruitment; but "difficult time" suggests ability to appeal.

Could parse: "the theory indicates why the Republican Party may have a difficult time attracting viable candidates." The Republican Party is a group trying to get candidates to run under its label. This is tautologically "be attractive to" but also they have to pull people in. In political party context, "attracting candidates" is about recruiting, i.e., drawing people into the party/candidate pool.

Let’s try to find evidence from WordNet examples/troponyms. Sense 1 examples include "The ad pulled in many potential customers"; "This pianist pulls huge crowds". Those are cases where an entity (ad/pianist) causes many people to come through its attributes. This is essentially the same as "beautiful garden attracted many people" (sense2). So how does WordNet differentiate? It may be that sense2 is an inchoative/stative variant of sense1? Let's check WordNet structure: attract v#1 is "attract, pull, pull in, draw, draw in". attract v#2 is "attract, appeal". So both have same lemma. They are probably related in an entailment/causative alternation. Sense1 "direct toward itself" is causative of motion; sense2 "be attractive to" is stative property that causes being directed toward it. The difference may be syntactic/ aspectual. Sense2 is non-agentive subject (the garden just is); sense1 can be used with agent-like subjects exerting psychological power. The Republican Party is an entity, but could be non-agentive property.

Maybe there is a clue: If the sentence can be paraphrased with "appeal to" without loss, it's sense2. "The Republican Party may have a difficult time appealing to viable candidates" doesn't quite idiomatic; one might say "attracting" not "appealing to candidates." But it works: "Candidates don't find the party appealing." If paraphrase with "pull/draw in", "drawing viable candidates into the party" also works.

Let's search memory of WordNet sense usage for "attract" in context of candidates: I recall there is a SemCor sentence: "Politicians often find that <tagged>attracting</tagged> qualified candidates is difficult." Maybe tagged as sense 1? Not sure.

Better to infer from WordNet's gloss nuance. Sense2 definition uses "be attractive to" as a verb; the party is attractive. In the sentence, the object is viable candidates. If subject is attractor and object is attracted, both sense 1 and 2. But what are entailments? Sense2 entails that the object is attracted to subject (stative). Sense1 entails object moves toward subject. The given context: candidates discouraged from running by prospect of defeat; thus the party can't get them to run. The candidates would have to voluntarily decide to run toward the party; the attractiveness condition is about how candidates perceive running. That is sense2.

However, any transitive 'attract' with people object could be sense1 as well. Need avoid ambiguity; but instructions say choose single best. Let's evaluate strongest alignment.

Let's consider the target surface form "attracting" used in progressive/having difficult time. The construction "have a difficult time attracting" is a common collocation. It implies making something attractive enough to draw (sense2). Example: "The company is having trouble attracting skilled workers." I'd intuitively tag that as attract#1? In standard dictionaries, "attract" (sense 1) = cause to approach; examples include "The firm is trying to attract new customers." That's sense1: direct toward itself by psychological power (marketing). "The company is trying to attract new customers" might be sense1 because it's active marketing. But also sense2 "be attractive to customers". Hmm.

WordNet sense 2 can be used: "Vacation appeals to me" (stative sense). For "attract" in sense2, "The new product attracted many buyers." Let me check WN examples: "The beautiful garden attracted many people" — active usage, not stative? It is an event: the garden caused people to come because it was attractive. This is not stative? But "be attractive to" is stative. The event sense of "attract" can be either. Actually WN definition "be attractive to" might allow event reading: at the moment, the garden was attractive to many people, causing them to come. So sense2 for garden example. Sense1 for ad example. Both cause approach. The difference is whether the subject's action or attribute is foregrounded.

Maybe sense1 includes "pull in" specifically with "potential customers" as direct object. Example from sense1: "The ad pulled in many potential customers". This matches a political party trying to attract candidates. It is similar commercial recruitment context. If we paraphrase using synonyms in sense1: "The Republican Party has difficult time pulling in viable candidates" / "drawing in viable candidates". That fits perfectly. Paraphrase with sense2: "Republican Party has difficult time being attractive to viable candidates" / "viable candidates find Republican Party attractive". Also fits.

Which is the intended sense in WordNet? Let's look at actual WordNet examples more. If I recall, WordNet sense 2 examples: "The idea of a vacation appeals to me"; "The beautiful garden attracted many people". These are exactly like "The Republican Party attracts viable candidates" (subject attractive to people). But sense 1 examples: "Her good looks attract the stares of many men" (pull attention), "The ad pulled in many potential customers" (pull through persuasion). Are candidates more like stares/customers or garden people? Candidates are people deciding. Both.

Let's examine gloss semantic components:
- Sense 1: "direct toward itself or oneself by means of some psychological power or physical attributes". 'Psychological power' includes persuasion/influence. The Republican Party (as an 'it') tries to influence candidates to run. This is active/direct. But the phrase "the theory indicates why ... may have a difficult time attracting" might mean theory explains difficulty in drawing candidates; maybe sense 1.

- Sense 2: "be attractive to". The party is attractive enough. The theory is about candidates being discouraged by prospect of defeat, i.e., office is less attractive; thus party cannot be attractive to candidates. This fits sense2.

Maybe can use WN derived antonyms: "attract" vs "repel". Sense1 antonym? "repel" sense 1: cause to move away. Sense2: be repellent? Sense2 antonym "repel"? "She was repelled by his behavior"? Actually "repel" can be "be repellent to". So both share opposite.

If we look at WordNet sense groups:
- attract (sense1) belongs to verb group "force, pull" perhaps.
- attract (sense2) belongs to verb group "appeal".

The phrase "attracting viable candidates" could be viewed as "recruiting" which is closer to "entice, allure" (hyponyms of sense1). Wait: "allure" is a hyponym of "attract"? In WordNet, "allure" (tempt someone with desirable offer) is under pull? Actually "entice, lure, tempt" are sense1 hyponyms? Let's recall: under attract (pull) there are "allure, bait, beckon, bewitch, captivate, catch, charm, draw, enchant, entrance, fascinate, magnetize, mesmerize, wile, solicit, invite, interest"? Hmm. If "attracting viable candidates" is similar to "inviting/recruiting" maybe sense1. But many of these overlap.

Let's inspect hypernym tree via mental WordNet:
attract v#2 (appeal) synonyms: appeal. Hypernym: "attract" maybe #2? Actually top hypernym maybe "interest, appeal to" or "be". Not sure. It may be under "attract, appeal" and hypernym is "draw, pull in, bring"? Let's try. In WordNet, for "appeal" verb: "appeal, attract" definitions. It might have hypernym "attract, appeal" itself? Wait. Let's reconstruct:
- Verb sense "appeal" (v#3) "be attractive to" synonyms: attract, appeal. Definition. It is perhaps hypernym of "attract"? Actually "attract" defines it. Hypernym could be "interest" or "appeal".

- Verb sense "attract" #2 "be attractive to". Synonyms: attract, appeal. It shares with appeal. So the concept is "appeal".

Sense1 "attract" shares synonyms with "pull/draw/in". Hypernym likely the physical/psychological causation of motion.

So if the context is about candidates being discouraged by prospect of defeat, it concerns whether running for office appeals to them. That is sense2.

But "attracting viable candidates" is not exactly "appeal to"? It is a bit like causing candidates to come to you. However, potential candidates' decision is based on attraction of office. The party is losing appeal. I'd lean sense2.

Need to be careful: WordNet schema example "The beautiful garden attracted many people" exactly has subject as a place/party and object as people. The Republican Party may have a difficult time attracting viable candidates. This is structurally identical to "beautiful garden attracted many people" (a non-agentive entity causing people to come due to attractiveness). Sense2.

Let's consider "The beautiful garden attracted many people" maybe actually sense1 in WordNet? No, listed under sense2 in candidate. So sense2 can be used with people as object, with a place/institution as subject. The Republican Party attracting candidates matches.

But what about "The ad pulled in many potential customers" (sense1). An institution/party is more like the garden than an ad? It is an entity with attributes (chance of winning). In political context, the party's "brand" operates like an ad? Yet candidates choose based on success probability, not merely attractiveness. Still sense2.

Need to output JSON {"sense_index": 2} perhaps. But let's not rush; examine sense 1 vs sense2 in WN and likely annotation guidelines.

Think of WordNet sense distinctions for "attract":

1. pull/draw (physical/psychological): often used with things like magnets, good looks, ad campaigns, etc. It implies a force or power. It is the more general "cause to move toward".
2. appeal (like attract): be attractive to; often colloquial.

Which sense is used more frequently in general corpus? Both common. But if we see target in context "attracting viable candidates", the phrase "viable candidates" are people who are being drawn to run; the best definition from given options is 1 "direct toward itself or oneself by means of some psychological power". Because we're talking about the Republican Party pulling/drawing candidates to itself. The synonym set includes "draw" and "draw in". "The Republican Party may have a difficult time drawing viable candidates." This sounds natural.

Whereas sense2 "be attractive to" synonym is "appeal". "The Republican Party may have a difficult time appealing to viable candidates" also okay but less idiomatic: we'd say "attracting" not "appealing to candidates." It actually works.

Let's search memory: In FrameNet, attract has frame 'Cause_motion' vs 'Stimulus_focus'? "attract" as a verb can participate in 'Causation_of_motion'? Hmm. For metaphorical attraction of candidates, likely 'Stimulus_focus' or 'Cause_motion'?

The phrase "attracting viable candidates" can be understood as "recruiting". FrameNet has frame 'Hiring' maybe uses "attract"? Not relevant.

Let's see if any other context provides disambiguating clue. The preceding context: "legislators who pay too much attention to national policy making relative to local benefit-seeking have lower security in office." Since first-term members vulnerable etc. Then: "Fourth, the theory indicates why the Republican Party may have a difficult time attracting viable candidates for congressional office." The reason after colon: "Potential candidates may be discouraged from running less by the congressional salary than by the prospect of defeat at the hands of a Democratic opponent." So the theoretical explanation is that candidates evaluate expected benefit vs cost. They will be "attracted" to run if benefits outweigh costs; otherwise not. This is the economic/psychological notion of attraction: something attracts because it pays. That's a force pulling them toward running (sense1: psychological power). "Psychological power" = economic incentives. And "attract" as in "the prospect of high salary attracts workers" typically sense1: direct toward itself by means of psychological power (motivational). The phrase "the prospect of defeat at the hands of a Democratic opponent" is the disincentive; "congressional salary" is an incentive. They are attracted to running because salary/possibility of winning pulls them. Since the party can't attract candidates because of the prospect of defeat, it's about incentives pulling them in. Aligns with sense1? But sense2 "be attractive to" also works: running is attractive if benefits high.

Check examples: "Her good looks attract the stares of many men." That is psychological/physical attribute causing attention. "The ad pulled in many potential customers." Incentives pull. This matches "prospect of defeat" lack of incentive. So sense1 might be the intended answer. Hmm.

But "garden attracted many people" also is because attributes are attractive. Candidates similarly. But the surrounding sentence explicitly mentions "salary" and "prospect of defeat." That is a cost-benefit calculation. Attract means "draw by offering advantages"—maybe sense1.

Let's consider the possibility that the question is from a standard WSD test. The context is about political science; target is 'attracting' object viable candidates. Which WordNet sense is typically chosen by annotators? I can try to recall examples in the WordNet corpus:
- "The theory indicates why the Republican Party may have a difficult time attracting viable candidates for congressional office." This looks like it might be from a textbook or article. It might be in a dataset. The annotated sense could be attract.v.01? Let's see if any sense tagging is known.

I can think of how sense distinctions appear in such corpora. For "attract", sense 1 is extremely common; most 'X attracts Y' where Y is people/attention/customers are sense1. Sense2 is used for subject that is attractive to object, no active force, e.g., "The idea appeals to me". In corpora, maybe sense2 examples are rare. "The beautiful garden attracted many people" is listed sense2 but in corpus maybe annotated sense1? Wait candidate says it's sense2. Not necessarily.

Let's look at WordNet definitions in detail:
WordNet 3.1:
- attract (v) (1)(also vb.net): direct toward itself or oneself by means of some psychological power or physical attributes; "Her good looks attract the stares of many men"; "The ad pulled in many potential customers"; "This pianist pulls huge crowds"; "The store owner was happy that the ads drew in many new customers".
- attract (v) (2): be attractive to; "The idea of a vacation appeals to me"; "The beautiful garden attracted many people"; "The aesthetic motion of the ballet dancer magnetized the crowd"? Wait magnetized maybe not.
- attract (v) (3): exert a force on (a body) causing it to approach or prevent it from moving away; "the gravitational pull of a planet attracts other bodies".

Notice sense1 includes "draw in many new customers" and "pulled in many potential customers". This is active recruitment. "The store owner was happy that the ads drew in many new customers." An ad draws. The Republican Party is similar to a store/ad trying to draw candidates. So sense1.

But sense2 includes "The beautiful garden attracted many people". A garden is not recruiting. It's attractive. The Republican Party context seems active— party trying to find candidates. However "have a difficult time attracting" doesn't specify active recruitment; it's the party's electoral prospects that attract candidates. But in sense1 examples, the ad is active and psychological. The party in this context is not actively advertising; it's simply the possibility. But many "attract" uses with organizations and people are certainly sense1 in WordNet? Example not sure.

Let's examine semantic entailments via synonyms.

If we replace "attracting" with "drawing" in context: "difficult time drawing viable candidates for congressional office." This phrase is natural: drawing candidates (getting them to run). It implies causative pull, sense1. If replace with "appealing to": "difficult time appealing to viable candidates for congressional office" is awkward, because "appeal to candidates for office" could mean ask candidates to appeal? Actually "appeal to viable candidates" is okay. But "have a difficult time appealing to viable candidates for congressional office" reads okay: the party does not appeal to them. However the prepositional phrase "for congressional office" makes it odd. If "appealing to viable candidates [to run] for congressional office"? Not exactly.

Alternate paraphrase: "draw in viable candidates" sounds like recruitment. "appeal to viable candidates" sounds like candidate preferences. Both plausible.

Let's think about WordNet gloss for sense1: "direct toward itself or oneself by means of some psychological power or physical attributes." The object is "viable candidates" and subject "Republican Party". Does the Republican Party possess physical attributes? No. It has psychological power: political reputation etc. Does it direct candidates toward itself? Yes, candidates would be pulled toward running as Republicans. Sense1.

Sense2: "be attractive to". Does the party be attractive to candidates? Yes. But the theory is not about party's attractiveness per se, but about candidate's costs/benefits. Actually candidate's decision is based on attractiveness of running.

We can also examine antonym "repel": "The Republican Party may have a difficult time repelling viable candidates"? That's opposite meaning? Actually in context, if it can't attract because candidates discouraged by prospect of defeat, potential candidates are not attracted. "Repel" in sense1 means cause to move away; in sense2 means be repulsive to. Both possible.

Let's check whether the direct object "candidates" takes a purpose clause "for congressional office." In sense1, "draw/pull candidates for office" means draw them in to become candidates. In sense2, "be attractive to candidates for office" would be weird because candidates already for office; why attract them? It might mean "attract viable people to be candidates". The phrase "attracting viable candidates for congressional office" = attracting viable people to run for congressional office. The target object is potential candidates, not incumbents. So it's about recruitment. If we say the party appeals to potential candidates, sense2. But recruitment is sense1.

Maybe there is a subtle grammatical clue: "attracting viable candidates for congressional office" can be parsed as [attracting [viable candidates for congressional office]] = attracting potential candidates. Both sense1 and 2.

Let's inspect sense of "appeal" as a synonym: "appeal" has a sense "be attractive to". Example "The idea of a vacation appeals to me." That is stative; subject is an idea/experience. In the target context, the subject is a political party (an institution). Can an institution "appeal to" viable candidates? Yes, "The Republican Party appeals to conservative candidates." That's stative sense2.

Also "attract" sense2 may be defined as "be attractive to" while the syntactic frame is NP1 attracts NP2 = NP2 is attracted to NP1. This is exactly what the sentence describes: candidates are attracted to the Republican Party. So sense2.

But the distinction between causing approach vs being attractive is a classic causative/inchoative alternation. In everyday language, "attract" often means "appeal to". For sentence "The Republican Party may have a difficult time attracting viable candidates," a non-linguistic reader likely thinks sense2 (candidates are not attracted). But the WordNet candidate examples might guide.

Let's see if WordNet assigns "attract" in sense2 for "The beautiful garden attracted many people". That shows that a non-agentive entity (garden) caused people to come. The Republican Party's brand/existence causes candidates to decide; it is attractive. So sense2.

However, the first sense includes "The store owner was happy that the ads drew in many new customers" (ad is non-agentive? ad exerts psychological force). A political party is more like an ad? It uses reputation to draw in new candidates. But the context says "the theory indicates" why party can't attract; the theory doesn't discuss party efforts but rather candidate incentives. It's about the party as an option being attractive.

Let's search for actual WordNet annotations of "attract" in SemCor? I can try to recall some occurrences:
- "The cricket must do all it can to attract a mate" -- probably sense1 (draw in).
- "a theory of gravity that explained why the earth attracts objects" -- sense3.
- "Even today a woman who is not attractive may not marry; a man who is not attractive may have a lonely life." Not relevant.

The candidates sentence seems likely to have been tagged as attract.v.01 in a lexical sample dataset? I will search my memory: In the ALLWORDS dataset, there's a sentence "A <head>attract</head> of..."? Not. There is a line from a political science text maybe in WSD development.

Let's decide using decision rules.

Decision aid: Could use subject animacy? The subject "Republican Party" is an organization; not a person. Sense1 examples feature "good looks" (attribute of person), "ad" (non-agentive media), "pianist" (person). Sense2 examples feature "garden" (non-agentive place), "idea" (abstract). The Republican Party is an organization. Does it have psychological power? As a collective entity, maybe. Is it attractive? As an institution, yes. No strong clue.

Could use object "viable candidates" animate. Sense1 examples with animate objects: "pianist pulls huge crowds", "ad pulled in customers". Sense2 examples with animate objects: "garden attracted many people". Both.

Could use complement "for congressional office" indicating purpose of being drawn. In "attract candidates for office" = recruiting for positions. Recruitment is sense1? Would you say "The company attracted candidates for the job"? That sounds sense2 (job attracted candidates) or sense1 (company pulled in candidates). Actually "attract candidates for a job" often used: "The job is attracting a lot of candidates" = job appeals to many (sense2). If subject is party, "attract candidates for congressional office" similar to "job attracted candidates." So sense2. In sense1 examples with "customers", no "for ... role". Candidates for office are like job seekers. So sense2 likely.

Also, the syntax "have a difficult time V-ing" often with sense2? "have a hard time attracting birds to feeder" - sense1? It involves drawing birds. But with job: "having trouble attracting qualified applicants" = sense2 (job is not appealing).

Let's frame: The sentence is essentially about why candidates are not drawn to running because of fear of defeat. That is the property of being attractive to candidates. So I'd choose sense 2.

But wait, if the final clause says "Potential candidates may be discouraged... the prospect of defeat..." then the Republican Party finding candidates is due to candidates being discouraged. "Attract" here means "be sufficiently appealing/draw in". In dictionary terms, sense2 "be attractive to" seems spot-on. The theory indicates why the party finds candidates less — because potential candidates don't find it appealing.

Yet "attract" as sense1 definition "direct toward itself by means of some psychological power" also captures incentives. Which is more "schematic"? The gloss is generic; examples include "ad pulled in customers". A party is like an ad trying to pull candidates. But WSD instructions say use context, examples, synonyms. The synonyms for sense2 "appeal" and examples "The beautiful garden attracted many people" align with the candidates being drawn to a prospective opportunity. I think the best is sense2.

However, let's be aware: In WordNet, sense2 definition "be attractive to" is used with examples "The beautiful garden attracted many people". This could be considered stative or generic. The context "may have a difficult time attracting viable candidates" is about dynamic difficulty. The candidate object "viable candidates" is similar to "many people"; the subject is an organization/party, similar to "garden"? Hmm. The sense1 example "The ad pulled in many potential customers" is also dynamic/object. The ad and party both try to attract. Which one is the sentence more like? In political science writing, the party isn't actively advertising; the prospects of winning/salary are the attractor.

Let's maybe compute semantic similarity between context and examples using conceptual framing. Example sense2 "The beautiful garden attracted many people" is a location/entity appealing to people. The Republican Party is a political organization; candidates are people who would be drawn to the opportunity of running under its label. This is more about appeal than exerting power.

Yes sense2.

Let's also consider if sense1 might be preferred because of synonym "draw in" usage: "draw in candidates". In the examples for sense1, "draw" and "pull" are used with customers. The Republican Party as organization exerts psychological power to draw candidates; candidates actively drawn in. This might be more likely for a formal/agentive subject.

Need to look at the phrase "attracting viable candidates for congressional office." If I insert synonyms:
- Sense1: "pulling in viable candidates for congressional office" (sounds a bit like physically pulling them in, but okay metaphorically)
- Sense1: "drawing viable candidates for congressional office" (natural; "draw" means elicit/encourage)
- Sense2: "appealing to viable candidates for congressional office" (okay)
- Sense2: "being attractive to viable candidates for congressional office" (more awkward but possible)

"Pull/draw viable candidates" all imply recruitment. "Appeal to viable candidates" implies candidates' preferences. In the passage, the focus is on potential candidates' decisions (discouraged by prospect of defeat). Therefore sense2.

However, can "pull" mean "appeal to"? "The job is pulling many applicants" perhaps equals appealing. But WordNet uses "draw/pull" as sense1.

Let's parse the original sentence more: "Fourth, the theory indicates why the Republican Party may have a difficult time attracting viable candidates for congressional office. Potential candidates may be discouraged from running less by the congressional salary than by the prospect of defeat at the hands of a Democratic opponent."

The colon after office introduces explanation. The explanation: candidates become discouraged due to risk of defeat. If risk of defeat is high, the party can't attract viable candidates. So the party's office (being a candidate) is not attractive; candidates are repelled. That aligns with sense2: be attractive to.

But also, "attract" is a result of candidates evaluating reward (salary) vs risk (defeat). The party literally "attracts" candidates by offering an attractive prospect. This could be sense1 (directing toward by psychological power of reward). Which morpheme? "attract" from Latin ad-trahere = draw toward. Sense1 is etymologically literal; sense2 derived. In WSD, one might pick the more abstract "be attractive to" for general. But the sentence is about the party causing candidates to enter (draw toward).

I need to settle. Perhaps we can use the principle: WordNet's second sense is essentially a stative sense "appeal to". In the sentence, can we rephrase as "The Republican Party may have a difficult time being attractive to viable candidates"? It fits. Can we rephrase as "direct viable candidates toward itself"? Also fits. But which definition is more precise? If the sentence has no explicit movement and is about preference, the second is better. The party is not physically moving candidates; but neither is the garden. Sense2 has a usage note "be attractive to" and includes people objects. I think sense2 is the answer.

But let's consider WordNet 3.1 definitions exactly. Attract#2: "be attractive to". Examples: "The idea of a vacation appeals to me"; "The beautiful garden attracted many people". This is a stative verb used in eventive contexts. The phrase "have a difficult time attracting" is an ability reading of stative property: difficult to be attractive to candidates. That's sense2.

Attract#1: "direct toward itself or oneself by means of some psychological power or physical attributes." This is a causative verb of motion/action. In eventive contexts where an agent exerts effort, e.g., "She tries to attract customers," this is sense1. The Republican Party has a "difficult time" doing something; that suggests effort/action (sense1). But a place can "have a difficult time attracting visitors" too; in that case it's about being appealing (sense2). So still ambiguous.

Maybe use the "by means of some psychological power" phrase. The party's attractiveness derives from prospect of winning/salary, which is psychological power over candidates' decisions. That could be sense1.

Let's look at dictionary definitions outside WordNet: Merriam-Webster: attract 1: to cause to approach or adhere; 2: to draw by appeal to natural or excited interest, emotion, or aesthetic sense: entice. Example: "The museum attracts visitors." This combined sense maps to WordNet sense1? Actually WordNet #1 includes "draw by appeal to interest" (entice). WordNet #2 is specifically "be attractive to". Hmm.

Collins: (1) If something attracts people or animals, it has features that cause them to come to it. (2) If someone or something attracts you, they have particular qualities which cause you to like or admire them. (3) If you are attracted by something, you are interested in it. These divide by subject/object differently.

WordNet's sense1 covers physical and psychological (including appeal to interest) causing approach. Sense2 covers stative appeal. So for candidates, they are interested in running: sense2? The party attracts them because office has appeal.

Could there be a clue from adjective "viable"? Viable candidates are those with chance of winning. They would be attracted to congressional office if not for low security. This is "be attractive to".

Given ambiguous, I need choose one. Maybe I should examine each hyponym/troponym to see which includes "attract candidates": "recruit"? In WordNet, recruit verb might be a hyponym of engage, hire, not attract. "attract" itself can mean "be attractive to". The phrase "attract candidates" in job context is usually "appeal to candidates". So sense2.

But there is a competing argument: The phrase is "attracting viable candidates for congressional office," which is a transitive verb with direct object candidates. In sense2, "attract" is a verb that takes a direct object? Yes, "The garden attracted many people". But semantically it's equivalent to "many people were attracted to the garden". So okay.

Let's consider performance of typical WSD: In WSD, the gloss overlap helps. For "attract" with object "candidates" and context "congressional office", gloss for sense2 contains "attractive to" and examples of garden/people. Gloss for sense1 contains "draw", "pull in", "potential customers". If choosing sense1, the synonym "draw" matches "candidates" (drawing candidates). If choosing sense2, "appeal" matches "candidates" (appealing to candidates).

Maybe a helpful clue is "have a difficult time". If a place/entity "has a difficult time attracting" something, it's about its ability to draw. Both.

But maybe the most natural reading with the causal explanation: Because candidates are discouraged by prospect of defeat, they are not attracted. This maps to sense2: the party is not attractive to them. The prospect of defeat reduces the attractiveness of running. The party can't make itself attractive. WordNet sense2 is defined as "be attractive to". So sense2 strongly matches: "Potential candidates may be discouraged from running ... prospect of defeat" => not attractive. The sentence is not about active directing; it's about candidates being attracted or not.

I will settle on sense 2. But I should consider raising alternative? User explicitly forbids hedging and wants only JSON. We can answer with one.

Wait before final, let's reflect if there might be any reason to choose sense1. The object is "viable candidates" running for office; political parties recruit candidates. "Attract" in this sense is a causative action. The preceding context: "legislator wins benefits for them". The fourth point about party attracting viable candidates to become candidates. This is likely sense1 because of active recruitment. However "have a difficult time" might be about the failure of the party's pull.

Could it be that in WordNet the second sense is rarely used with animate object where the subject exerts effort. If a party actively recruits, WSD annotators might choose sense1. Yet "beautiful garden attracted many people" is exactly non-effort. Party not actively recruiting = sense2.

Let's look at examples in sense1: "The ad pulled in many potential customers". Here an ad pulls in customers; it's active media, like party trying to attract candidates. The phrase "potential customers" vs "viable candidates" both human groups recruited to an organization. This is a strong analogy to sense1.

In sense2 examples: "The beautiful garden attracted many people". A place inherent attractiveness; not a recruiting entity. The Republican Party is an organization seeking members. But the context is not describing active campaign but structural incentive. Hmm.

I think this is genuinely ambiguous; we need decide which WordNet sense the question expects. We can maybe look for the source text: It may be from David Mayhew's Congress: The Electoral Connection? "Second, it explains why voters hold Congress in disdain but generally love their own congressional representatives... Third... Fourth, the theory indicates why the Republican Party may have a difficult time attracting viable candidates for congressional office." This text discusses theory of congressional elections. In the original, "attracting viable candidates" likely means drawing/recruiting. Academic English—"attracting viable candidates" synonyms "inducing" or "recruiting." The theory explains supply of candidates based on costs/benefits. The party can't induce quality people to run because risk of defeat. This is "direct toward itself by means of psychological power" (sense1) or "appeal to" (sense2). Actually "induce" is a hyponym of "attract" sense1? Maybe "attract" in sense of "draw in by offering something". In WordNet, sense1 examples include ad pulling customers, which is inducing. So sense1.

Wait, "appealing to viable candidates" in political science context would mean candidates like the party's policies; but the text focuses on cost/benefit (salary vs defeat). That is about the attractiveness of the office as an opportunity, which is more like drawing in candidates through positive and negative incentives. This still is sense1 by psychological power (candidates are drawn by expected value). But the exact sense division in WordNet: sense1 includes both physical pull and psychological power; examples include ad drawing customers. The causal mechanism here is candidates' utility calculations, a kind of psychological pull. So sense1 fits better with causative direct-toward-itself. It is not merely that the party is attractive; it is that the prospect of winning office pulls candidates in. The phrase "attracting viable candidates" is about eliciting their entry (causative).

On the other hand, the object "viable candidates" are not currently moving toward the party; they are evaluating. If no risk, they will be attracted (drawn). This is exactly "The beautiful garden attracted many people"—people evaluated the garden and came.

Honestly, both senses are defensible. We need pick the single best. Let's look at exact candidate list: "sense_key=attract%2:35:00::" etc. The sense keys:
- attract%2:35:00:: is sense1 (pull/draw)
- attract%2:37:00:: is sense2 (appeal be attractive to)
- attract%2:35:01:: is sense3 (physics).
In WordNet, verb group 35 is "Contact"? Wait WordNet lexicographer files: 35? Verbs of contact? Let's recall WordNet lexicographer file numbers: noun.*; verb.*. For verbs: 35 maybe "verb.contact"? Actually attract belongs to verb.contact? File: verb.contact? Let's not. But sense1 2:35:00, sense2 2:37:00, sense3 2:35:01. The file numbers show sense1 and sense3 in same file (verb.contact? maybe verb.motion?), sense2 in another file (verb.emotion? or verb.perception?). If sense2 is in file 37 (maybe verb.cognition?), the distinction likely is psychological/appeal vs motion/contact. This may hint: candidates are not physical force, so sense2; unless sense1 file 35 includes psychological power.

Given the WSD guidelines and gloss examples, I suspect the intended answer is sense 2. The phrase "viable candidates" are people who are attracted to the opportunity, not pulled by power. The "beautiful garden attracted many people" is similar; candidates are attracted to the party if prospects good.

But many WSD systems would choose sense1 because it's the most frequent sense ( gloss1). However the instructions say not to default to most frequent; use context.

Let's examine if the context mentions "psychological power"? The theory is about rational choice, not psychological power. Actually rational calculus. Not physical attributes. Candidates are drawn by benefits; that's "be attractive to" or "appeal". So sense2.

One more angle: If sense1 were used, the subject would be the party's actions/attributes that pull candidates. But the context says candidates discouraged by prospect of defeat. So party is not attractive because risk of defeat. This is the property of being attractive. Sense2 uses "be attractive to". So sense2.

I'll choose sense index 2. The JSON output: {"sense_index": 2}. Ensure no extra text. Return only JSON object exactly like asked.

provider: DeepInfra


[System] You are an English linguist performing fine-grained Word Sense Disambiguation. WordNet glosses are schematic. Use the sentence context, the examples, and the synonyms to choose the best indexed sense. Do not hedge. Choose the single best indexed sense.

[User]
Target lemma: candidate
Target surface form: candidates
Context:
Second, it explains why voters hold Congress in disdain but generally love their own congressional representatives: Any individual legislator's constituents appreciate the specific benefits that the legislator wins for them but not the overall cost associated with every other legislator doing likewise for his own constituency. Third, the theory suggests why legislators who pay too much attention to national policy making relative to local benefit-seeking have lower security in office. For example, first-term - term members of the House, once the most vulnerable of incumbents, have become virtually immune to defeat. The one exception to this recent trend was the defeat of 13 of the 52 freshman Republicans brought into office in 1980 by the Reagan revolution and running for re-election in 1982. Because these freshmen placed far more emphasis on their partisan role -- spreading the Reagan revolution -- in national policy making, they were more vulnerable to defeat. Fourth, the theory indicates why the Republican Party may have a difficult time attracting viable <t>candidates</t> for congressional office. Potential candidates may be discouraged from running less by the congressional salary than by the prospect of defeat at the hands of a Democratic opponent.

Candidate senses:
1. sense_key=candidate%1:18:01:: | definition=a politician who is running for public office | synonyms=campaigner, nominee
2. sense_key=candidate%1:18:00:: | definition=someone who is considered for something (for an office or prize or honor etc.) | synonyms=prospect

Instructions:
1. Choose the single best indexed sense for the target word in context.
2. WordNet glosses are schematic; use the context, synonyms, and examples together.
3. Do not answer with a WordNet sense key.
4. Return only a JSON object exactly like {"sense_index": 3}.

reasoning_content: We need choose best WordNet sense index for target lemma candidate, surface form candidates. Context: about Republican Party attracting viable candidates for congressional office. Potential candidates discouraged from running. So sense "a politician who is running for public office" vs "someone who is considered for something". In context, "attracting viable candidates for congressional office" and "Potential candidates may be discouraged from running" strongly indicates politicians running for office. Sense 1 definition: a politician who is running for public office; synonyms campaigner, nominee. Sense 2: someone considered for something. So answer index 1. Return JSON {"sense_index": 1}.

provider: Ambient


[System] You are an English linguist performing fine-grained Word Sense Disambiguation. WordNet glosses are schematic. Use the sentence context, the examples, and the synonyms to choose the best indexed sense. Do not hedge. Choose the single best indexed sense.

[User]
Target lemma: office
Target surface form: office
Context:
Second, it explains why voters hold Congress in disdain but generally love their own congressional representatives: Any individual legislator's constituents appreciate the specific benefits that the legislator wins for them but not the overall cost associated with every other legislator doing likewise for his own constituency. Third, the theory suggests why legislators who pay too much attention to national policy making relative to local benefit-seeking have lower security in office. For example, first-term - term members of the House, once the most vulnerable of incumbents, have become virtually immune to defeat. The one exception to this recent trend was the defeat of 13 of the 52 freshman Republicans brought into office in 1980 by the Reagan revolution and running for re-election in 1982. Because these freshmen placed far more emphasis on their partisan role -- spreading the Reagan revolution -- in national policy making, they were more vulnerable to defeat. Fourth, the theory indicates why the Republican Party may have a difficult time attracting viable candidates for congressional <t>office</t>. Potential candidates may be discouraged from running less by the congressional salary than by the prospect of defeat at the hands of a Democratic opponent.

Candidate senses:
1. sense_key=office%1:06:00:: | definition=place of business where professional or clerical duties are performed | synonyms=business office | examples=he rented an office in the new building
2. sense_key=office%1:14:01:: | definition=an administrative unit of government | synonyms=agency, federal agency, government agency, bureau, authority | examples=the Central Intelligence Agency; the Census Bureau
3. sense_key=office%1:04:01:: | definition=the actions and activities assigned to or required or expected of a person or group | synonyms=function, part, role | examples=the function of a teacher; the government must do its part
4. sense_key=office%1:26:00:: | definition=(of a government or government official) holding an office means being in power | synonyms=power | examples=being in office already gives a candidate a great advantage; during his first year in office
5. sense_key=office%1:14:00:: | definition=professional or clerical workers in an office | synonyms=office staff | examples=the whole office was late the morning of the blizzard
6. sense_key=office%1:04:00:: | definition=a religious rite or service prescribed by ecclesiastical authorities | examples=the offices of the mass
7. sense_key=office%1:04:02:: | definition=a job in an organization | synonyms=position, post, berth, spot, billet, place | examples=he occupied a post in the treasury

Instructions:
1. Choose the single best indexed sense for the target word in context.
2. WordNet glosses are schematic; use the context, synonyms, and examples together.
3. Do not answer with a WordNet sense key.
4. Return only a JSON object exactly like {"sense_index": 3}.

reasoning_content:
 We need choose best indexed sense for target "office" in context. We need output JSON {"sense_index": 3} only. Let's analyze.

Target surface: office, in phrase "congressional <t>office</t>". Sentence: "Fourth, the theory indicates why the Republican Party may have a difficult time attracting viable candidates for congressional office. Potential candidates may be discouraged from running less by the congressional salary than by the prospect of defeat at the hands of a Democratic opponent."

"congressional office" can mean a position/job in Congress? Or the place of business/office? Let's inspect senses.

1. place of business where professional or clerical duties are performed (business office), example rented an office. Not likely.
2. administrative unit of government (agency/bureau). Congressional office? Could refer to local offices of members? But phrase "attracting viable candidates for congressional office" = seeking office (the position/power) in Congress.
3. actions/activities assigned/required of a person or group (function, role). Could be "the office of president"? But "congressional office" as role? Maybe not.
4. holding an office means being in power. Example "in office". Phrase candidate for congressional office = standing for election to office. Sense 4 specifically "holding an office means being in power" synonyms power. The example "being in office already gives a candidate a great advantage". But "candidates for congressional office" could mean seeking to hold office, i.e., position of power.
5. professional or clerical workers in an office. no.
6. religious rite. no.
7. a job in an organization (position, post). "he occupied a post in the treasury". Congressional office could be a job/post as a legislator. Sense 7 is similar to position, post.

Distinguish between sense 4 (state of holding an office/being in power) and sense 7 (a job in an organization/position) and sense 3 (function/role). In WordNet, sense 4 defined "(of a government or government official) holding an office means being in power" with synonym power, example "during his first year in office". This is state of being in power. "running for office" maybe maps to sense 4? "candidate for office" is a candidate to hold office (be in power). WordNet sense 4 examples "being in office already gives a candidate a great advantage; during his first year in office". Actually "being in office already gives a candidate a great advantage". "in office" is the state. Target "candidates for congressional office" means running for a governmental position; "office" is the public position or function. In WordNet maybe "office" senses: 1 place, 2 agency, 3 function/role, 4 power/holding office, 7 position/job.

Many WSD taggers assign "run for office" to sense 4? Let's think. WordNet 3.0 maybe office senses: 04:02 (position, post, berth...) defined "a job in an organization". Examples "he occupied a post in the treasury". 04:01 (function, role) defined "the actions and activities assigned to or required or expected of a person or group". 26:00 defined "(of a government or government official) holding an office means being in power". "congressional office" as a phrase likely means a position in Congress, i.e., 1:04:02 (job/position), not the state of being in power. However, "attracting viable candidates for congressional office" = attracting candidates to run for a role as a member of Congress; a candidate seeks a position/post. Sense 7 synonyms include position, post, berth, spot, billet, place. This fits "congressional office" as a job/position.

But "office" after "congressional" may also be sense 4 (power). Example "candidate for a high office" maybe sense 4? Let's examine WN examples: sense 4: "being in office already gives a candidate a great advantage; during his first year in office". That refers to the state or fact of holding office. The phrase "for office" in "candidates for office" could be the same: candidate for [the state of being in] office. But if used as direct object of preposition "for", is office the position being sought or the state?

"run for office" is common meaning to seek election to a position. Which WN sense captures? Let's recall WordNet mapping for "run for office" in SemCor? Might be sense 4 or sense 7. Let's search memory: In WordNet 3.0, office has 7 senses. SemCor maybe tagged "office" in "high office" as sense 4? "Holding a public office" sense. But "the office of mayor" maybe sense 3 (function, role) or sense 7. Hmm.

Definitions:
3. "the actions and activities assigned to or required or expected of a person or group" (function/part/role)
4. "(of a government or government official) holding an office means being in power" (power)
7. "a job in an organization" (position/post/berth/spot/billet/place)

Candidate for congressional office is seeking a job/position as a congressperson. The office is the position itself (job). Sense 7 synonyms: position, post, place. "candidates for office" most closely matches "position, post". Sense 4 is about being in power, and "candidate for power" is not natural. "congressional office" as a phrase could refer to "congressional position". I think sense 7 is best.

But context mentions "security in office" earlier: "legislators who pay too much attention to national policy making relative to local benefit-seeking have lower security in office." That earlier instance "security in office" clearly means in power (sense 4). There is also "brought into office in 1980" = sense 4. Then "congressional office" target is separate. It's "candidates for congressional office" not "in office". Could be sense 4 if they are attracting candidates for running to get into office. But the phrase "congressional office" itself can be a position. Let's check synonyms: "position, post, berth, spot, billet, place" all refer to a job. "congressional office" as a job: a member of Congress holds an office (post). The phrase "hold office" uses sense 4? Actually "hold office" maybe sense 4: holding an office means being in power. Also "brought into office" sense 4. But "congressional office" preceding phrase "candidates for ..." likely sense 7.

Need decide single best.

Let's parse context. "Fourth, the theory indicates why the Republican Party may have a difficult time attracting viable candidates for congressional office." This is continuation about legislators, incumbents, defeat. "viable candidates for congressional office" means people to run for congressional seats. "office" can mean position/status as an elected official. In dictionary, "office" as a position of authority/trust or service, especially a government position; also "the office of president". In WordNet, sense 7 and 4 split this domain: 4 = holding office (power), 7 = job in organization. Candidate for "office" as a job/position. Example: "he wanted to feel a part of the world of high office" maybe sense? "a high office" could refer to high status/power. But "congressional office" with adjective describing a type of position. I'd lean 7.

However, WordNet definition of 7 includes examples "he occupied a post in the treasury". Synonyms: position, post, berth, spot, billet, place. "Congressional office" is a "position in Congress". So 7.

But we must ensure not sense 3 (function/role). "actions and activities assigned..." not a job title; "office" there refers to duties/functions rather than the position. "the function of a teacher". The context is about candidates running, not duties. So not 3.

Sense 4: In the same paragraph, "security in office", "brought into office". Those are sense 4 and the phrase "in office" specifically. The target "congressional office" is outside of those phrases. Candidate sense 4 gloss says "holding an office means being in power". The target is not about holding or being in power but about running for a position. So 7 is better.

Thus answer: {"sense_index": 7}.

Need ensure instruction not answer with sense key, only JSON. final exactly single JSON object.

Let's produce final.

provider: Parasail


[System] You are an English linguist performing fine-grained Word Sense Disambiguation. WordNet glosses are schematic. Use the sentence context, the examples, and the synonyms to choose the best indexed sense. Do not hedge. Choose the single best indexed sense.

[User]
Target lemma: potential
Target surface form: Potential
Context:
Third, the theory suggests why legislators who pay too much attention to national policy making relative to local benefit-seeking have lower security in office. For example, first-term - term members of the House, once the most vulnerable of incumbents, have become virtually immune to defeat. The one exception to this recent trend was the defeat of 13 of the 52 freshman Republicans brought into office in 1980 by the Reagan revolution and running for re-election in 1982. Because these freshmen placed far more emphasis on their partisan role -- spreading the Reagan revolution -- in national policy making, they were more vulnerable to defeat. Fourth, the theory indicates why the Republican Party may have a difficult time attracting viable candidates for congressional office. <t>Potential</t> candidates may be discouraged from running less by the congressional salary than by the prospect of defeat at the hands of a Democratic opponent. To the extent that potential Republican candidates and their financial backers realize that the congressional prisoner's dilemma game works to their disadvantage, the Republican Party will be hindered in its attempts to field a competitive slate of congressional candidates.

Candidate senses:
1. sense_key=potential%3:00:00:: | definition=existing in possibility | synonyms=possible | examples=a potential problem; possible uses of nuclear power
2. sense_key=potential%5:00:00:prospective:00 | definition=expected to become or be; in prospect | synonyms=likely | examples=potential clients

Instructions:
1. Choose the single best indexed sense for the target word in context.
2. WordNet glosses are schematic; use the context, synonyms, and examples together.
3. Do not answer with a WordNet sense key.
4. Return only a JSON object exactly like {"sense_index": 3}.

reasoning_content:
The user wants me to perform Word Sense Disambiguation for the word "potential" in the given context. I need to choose between two candidate senses and return only a JSON object with the sense index.

Let me analyze the context:

"Potential candidates may be discouraged from running less by the congressional salary than by the prospect of defeat at the hands of a Democratic opponent. To the extent that potential Republican candidates and their financial backers realize that the congressional prisoner's dilemma game works to their disadvantage, the Republican Party will be hindered in its attempts to field a competitive slate of congressional candidates."

The target is "Potential candidates" (using it as an adjective modifying "candidates"). Actually looking at the context, the first instance is "<t>Potential</t> candidates" - so potential modifies candidates.

Candidate senses:
1. existing in possibility; synonyms=possible; examples=a potential problem; possible uses of nuclear power
2. expected to become or be; in prospect; synonyms=likely; examples=potential clients

In the context, "Potential candidates" refers to people who are considering running for office, who might become candidates. They are prospective candidates - people expected to become candidates.

Sense 2 says "expected to become or be; in prospect" with examples "potential clients" - this fits "potential candidates": people who are expected to become candidates.

Sense 1 "existing in possibility; possible" - this is broader, more about something that could potentially exist. A "potential problem" is a problem that might arise. But "potential candidates" are specifically people who are expected to be candidates in prospect.

The proper adjective sense for "potential candidates" in political context is prospective/expected to become. This matches sense 2.

The sentence is about attracting viable candidates for congressional office - "Potential candidates may be discouraged from running" - these are people who could/would run, i.e., prospective candidates.

So the best sense is sense 2.

I must return only JSON: {"sense_index": 2}.

provider: Together


[System] You are an English linguist performing fine-grained Word Sense Disambiguation. WordNet glosses are schematic. Use the sentence context, the examples, and the synonyms to choose the best indexed sense. Do not hedge. Choose the single best indexed sense.

[User]
Target lemma: candidate
Target surface form: candidates
Context:
Third, the theory suggests why legislators who pay too much attention to national policy making relative to local benefit-seeking have lower security in office. For example, first-term - term members of the House, once the most vulnerable of incumbents, have become virtually immune to defeat. The one exception to this recent trend was the defeat of 13 of the 52 freshman Republicans brought into office in 1980 by the Reagan revolution and running for re-election in 1982. Because these freshmen placed far more emphasis on their partisan role -- spreading the Reagan revolution -- in national policy making, they were more vulnerable to defeat. Fourth, the theory indicates why the Republican Party may have a difficult time attracting viable candidates for congressional office. Potential <t>candidates</t> may be discouraged from running less by the congressional salary than by the prospect of defeat at the hands of a Democratic opponent. To the extent that potential Republican candidates and their financial backers realize that the congressional prisoner's dilemma game works to their disadvantage, the Republican Party will be hindered in its attempts to field a competitive slate of congressional candidates.

Candidate senses:
1. sense_key=candidate%1:18:01:: | definition=a politician who is running for public office | synonyms=campaigner, nominee
2. sense_key=candidate%1:18:00:: | definition=someone who is considered for something (for an office or prize or honor etc.) | synonyms=prospect

Instructions:
1. Choose the single best indexed sense for the target word in context.
2. WordNet glosses are schematic; use the context, synonyms, and examples together.
3. Do not answer with a WordNet sense key.
4. Return only a JSON object exactly like {"sense_index": 3}.

reasoning_content: We need answer WSD. Target lemma candidate, surface candidates in context. Two candidate senses: 1 candidate%1:18:01:: a politician running for public office (campaigner, nominee); 2 candidate%1:18:00:: someone considered for something (prospect). The phrase: "Potential candidates may be discouraged from running less by the congressional salary than by the prospect of defeat at the hands of a Democratic opponent." Context about candidates for congressional office, Republican Party attracting viable candidates. So candidate as politician running for public office. The first sense specifically politician running. The second is broad considered for something. The text explicitly "potential candidates ... running", "congressional office". That aligns strongly with sense 1. Need output JSON {"sense_index": 1}. Ensure no extra.


[System] You are an English linguist performing fine-grained Word Sense Disambiguation. WordNet glosses are schematic. Use the sentence context, the examples, and the synonyms to choose the best indexed sense. Do not hedge. Choose the single best indexed sense.

[User]
Target lemma: discourage
Target surface form: discouraged
Context:
Third, the theory suggests why legislators who pay too much attention to national policy making relative to local benefit-seeking have lower security in office. For example, first-term - term members of the House, once the most vulnerable of incumbents, have become virtually immune to defeat. The one exception to this recent trend was the defeat of 13 of the 52 freshman Republicans brought into office in 1980 by the Reagan revolution and running for re-election in 1982. Because these freshmen placed far more emphasis on their partisan role -- spreading the Reagan revolution -- in national policy making, they were more vulnerable to defeat. Fourth, the theory indicates why the Republican Party may have a difficult time attracting viable candidates for congressional office. Potential candidates may be <t>discouraged</t> from running less by the congressional salary than by the prospect of defeat at the hands of a Democratic opponent. To the extent that potential Republican candidates and their financial backers realize that the congressional prisoner's dilemma game works to their disadvantage, the Republican Party will be hindered in its attempts to field a competitive slate of congressional candidates.

Candidate senses:
1. sense_key=discourage%2:32:01:: | definition=try to prevent; show opposition to | synonyms=deter | examples=We should discourage this practice among our youth
2. sense_key=discourage%2:37:00:: | definition=deprive of courage or hope; take away hope from; cause to feel discouraged
3. sense_key=discourage%2:32:02:: | definition=admonish or counsel in terms of someone's behavior | synonyms=warn, admonish, monish | examples=I warned him not to go too far; I warn you against false assumptions

Instructions:
1. Choose the single best indexed sense for the target word in context.
2. WordNet glosses are schematic; use the context, synonyms, and examples together.
3. Do not answer with a WordNet sense key.
4. Return only a JSON object exactly like {"sense_index": 3}.

reasoning_content: We need answer as JSON only. Determine best sense. Context: "Potential candidates may be discouraged from running less by the congressional salary than by the prospect of defeat..." This is passive construction: candidates are discouraged from running. Meaning? Is it they are made less willing to run, i.e., deterred. Sense 1 definition: try to prevent; show opposition to; synonyms=deter. But the target is "discouraged" as passive, like candidates are deterred from running. Sense 2: deprive of courage or hope; cause to feel discouraged. Sense 3: admonish/warn. Here potential candidates are discouraged from running by something (the prospect of defeat). This is similar to "discourage this practice among our youth" sense 1: prevent, deter from an action. WordNet sense key discourage%2:32:01:: vs 2:32:02. Sense 1 examples "We should discourage this practice among our youth." It is transitive with action/practice. "discouraged from running" fits sense 1 (deter from doing something) more than sense 2 (make someone feel discouraged emotionally). However the sentence also mentions "running less by ... than by prospect of defeat"; candidates are made less inclined, i.e., deterred. Sense index 1. Ensure JSON only.

provider: Venice


[System] You are an English linguist performing fine-grained Word Sense Disambiguation. WordNet glosses are schematic. Use the sentence context, the examples, and the synonyms to choose the best indexed sense. Do not hedge. Choose the single best indexed sense.

[User]
Target lemma: run
Target surface form: running
Context:
Third, the theory suggests why legislators who pay too much attention to national policy making relative to local benefit-seeking have lower security in office. For example, first-term - term members of the House, once the most vulnerable of incumbents, have become virtually immune to defeat. The one exception to this recent trend was the defeat of 13 of the 52 freshman Republicans brought into office in 1980 by the Reagan revolution and running for re-election in 1982. Because these freshmen placed far more emphasis on their partisan role -- spreading the Reagan revolution -- in national policy making, they were more vulnerable to defeat. Fourth, the theory indicates why the Republican Party may have a difficult time attracting viable candidates for congressional office. Potential candidates may be discouraged from <t>running</t> less by the congressional salary than by the prospect of defeat at the hands of a Democratic opponent. To the extent that potential Republican candidates and their financial backers realize that the congressional prisoner's dilemma game works to their disadvantage, the Republican Party will be hindered in its attempts to field a competitive slate of congressional candidates.

Candidate senses:
1. sense_key=run%2:38:00:: | definition=move fast by using one's feet, with one foot off the ground at any given time | examples=Don't run--you'll be out of breath; The children ran to the store
2. sense_key=run%2:38:04:: | definition=flee; take to one's heels; cut and run | synonyms=scat, scarper, turn tail, lam, run away, hightail it | examples=If you see this man, run!; The burglars escaped before the police showed up
3. sense_key=run%2:42:00:: | definition=stretch out over a distance, space, time, or scope; run or extend between two points or beyond a certain point | synonyms=go, pass, lead, extend | examples=Service runs all the way to Cranbury; His knowledge doesn't go very far
4. sense_key=run%2:41:02:: | definition=direct or control; projects, businesses, etc. | synonyms=operate | examples=She is running a relief operation in the Sudan
5. sense_key=run%2:42:04:: | definition=have a particular form | synonyms=go | examples=the story or argument runs as follows; as the saying goes...
6. sense_key=run%2:38:01:: | definition=move along, of liquids | synonyms=flow, feed, course | examples=Water flowed into the cave; the Missouri feeds into the Mississippi
7. sense_key=run%2:35:00:: | definition=perform as expected when applied | synonyms=function, work, operate, go | examples=The washing machine won't go unless it's plugged in; Does this old car still run well?
8. sense_key=run%2:42:07:: | definition=change or be different within limits | synonyms=range | examples=Estimates for the losses in the earthquake range as high as $2 billion; Interest rates run from 5 to 10 percent
9. sense_key=run%2:33:06:: | definition=run, stand, or compete for an office or a position | synonyms=campaign | examples=Who's running for treasurer this year?
10. sense_key=run%2:36:01:: | definition=cause to emit recorded audio or video | synonyms=play | examples=They ran the tapes over and over again; I'll play you my favorite record
11. sense_key=run%2:38:11:: | definition=move about freely and without restraint, or act as if running around in an uncontrolled way | examples=who are these people running around in the building?; She runs around telling everyone of her troubles
12. sense_key=run%2:42:01:: | definition=have a tendency or disposition to do or be something; be inclined | synonyms=tend, be given, lean, incline | examples=She tends to be nervous before her lectures; These dresses run small
13. sense_key=run%2:35:04:: | definition=be operating, running or functioning | examples=The car is still running--turn it off!
14. sense_key=run%2:30:03:: | definition=change from one state to another | examples=run amok; run rogue
15. sense_key=run%2:30:07:: | definition=cause to perform | examples=run a subject; run a process
16. sense_key=run%2:42:02:: | definition=be affected by; be subjected to | examples=run a temperature; run a risk
17. sense_key=run%2:42:03:: | definition=continue to exist | synonyms=prevail, persist, die hard, endure | examples=These stories die hard; The legend of Elvis endures
18. sense_key=run%2:42:06:: | definition=occur persistently | examples=Musical talent runs in the family
19. sense_key=run%2:41:00:: | definition=carry out a process or program, as on a computer or a machine | synonyms=execute | examples=Run the dishwasher; run a new program on the Mac
20. sense_key=run%2:36:02:: | definition=include as the content; broadcast or publicize | synonyms=carry | examples=We ran the ad three times; This paper carries a restaurant review
21. sense_key=run%2:36:00:: | definition=carry out | examples=run an errand
22. sense_key=run%2:35:01:: | definition=pass over, across, or through | synonyms=guide, draw, pass | examples=He ran his eyes over her body; She ran her fingers along the carved figurine
23. sense_key=run%2:42:08:: | definition=cause something to pass or lead somewhere | synonyms=lead | examples=Run the wire behind the cabinet
24. sense_key=run%2:41:01:: | definition=make without a miss
25. sense_key=run%2:40:06:: | definition=deal in illegally, such as arms or liquor | synonyms=black market
26. sense_key=run%2:38:10:: | definition=cause an animal to move fast | examples=run the dogs
27. sense_key=run%2:38:08:: | definition=be diffused | synonyms=bleed | examples=These dyes and colors are guaranteed not to run
28. sense_key=run%2:38:03:: | definition=sail before the wind
29. sense_key=run%2:38:05:: | definition=cover by running; run a certain distance | examples=She ran 10 miles that day
30. sense_key=run%2:42:05:: | definition=extend or continue for a certain period of time | synonyms=run for | examples=The film runs 5 hours
31. sense_key=run%2:41:04:: | definition=set animals loose to graze
32. sense_key=run%2:38:02:: | definition=keep company | synonyms=consort | examples=the heifers run with the bulls to produce offspring
33. sense_key=run%2:38:06:: | definition=run with the ball; in such sports as football
34. sense_key=run%2:38:13:: | definition=travel rapidly, by any (unspecified) means | examples=Run to the store!; She always runs to Italy, because she has a lover there
35. sense_key=run%2:38:09:: | definition=travel a route regularly | synonyms=ply | examples=Ships ply the waters near the coast
36. sense_key=run%2:33:02:: | definition=pursue for food or sport (as of wild animals) | synonyms=hunt, hunt down, track down | examples=Goering often hunted wild boars in Poland; The dogs are running deer
37. sense_key=run%2:33:01:: | definition=compete in a race | synonyms=race | examples=he is running the Marathon this year; let's race and see who gets there first
38. sense_key=run%2:30:02:: | definition=progress by being changed | synonyms=move, go | examples=The speech has to go through several more drafts; run through your presentation before the meeting
39. sense_key=run%2:30:00:: | definition=reduce or cause to be reduced from a solid to a liquid state, usually by heating | synonyms=melt, melt down | examples=melt butter; melt down gold
40. sense_key=run%2:30:01:: | definition=come unraveled or undone as if by snagging | synonyms=ladder | examples=Her nylons were running
41. sense_key=run%2:30:04:: | definition=become undone | synonyms=unravel | examples=the sweater unraveled

Instructions:
1. Choose the single best indexed sense for the target word in context.
2. WordNet glosses are schematic; use the context, synonyms, and examples together.
3. Do not answer with a WordNet sense key.
4. Return only a JSON object exactly like {"sense_index": 3}.

reasoning_content: We need perform WSD. Target lemma run, surface running. Context: "Potential candidates may be discouraged from running less by the congressional salary than by the prospect of defeat at the hands of a Democratic opponent." This is about running for office. Candidate sense 9: run, stand, or compete for an office or a position; synonyms campaign; example Who's running for treasurer this year? That matches. earlier in passage: "running for re-election in 1982" same sense. The target "running" refers to running for congressional office. So sense_index=9 (in list numbering 1-based). Return JSON only.