The input is taken from a negotiation between two participants who take the role of campsite neighbors and negotiate for Food, Water, and Firewood packages, based on their individual preferences and requirements. Given an utterance and recent dialogue context containing past 3 utterances (wherever available), output Yes if the utterance contains the no-need strategy, otherwise output No. no-need is a cooperative negotiation strategy. It is used when a participant points out that they do not need an item based on personal context such as suggesting that they have ample water to spare. no-need can directly benefit the opponent since it implies that the item is up for grabs.
One example: Context: 
Utterance: 'how about I give you 2 waters and 1 food package in exchange for all your firewood?'
Solution is here: No
Explanation: The utterance does not use the no-need strategy since it never refers to an item that the participant does not need.

Now, solve this: Context: 'I think so too. I have a medical condition - type 1 diabetes - that makes it important to bring extra water and food. I'd like to request more of those two items.' 'I don't have a problem with you having extra water.  I'll give you all the water, if I can have all of the firewood.' 'I think that's more than fair. That only brings up the food to be divided. One of us is going to have to take less.'
Utterance: 'I'd be fine with taking less food.  So, I would get 3 firewood, 1 food, and 0 water.  Is that correct?'
Solution:
Yes