In this task you are given a disfluent question, a proper question and a context. A disfluent question is a question that has some interruptions in it while framing and a proper question is the correct form of the question without any disfluency. Classify whether the question is answerable or not based on the given context.
One example is below.
Q: proper question: Who recorded Walking in Fresno? 
 disfluent question: Where no sorry who recorded Walking in Fresno? 
 context: In the 1970s, the city was the subject of a song, Walking Into Fresno, written by Hall Of Fame guitarist Bill Aken and recorded by Bob Gallion of the world-famous WWVA Jamboree radio and television show in Wheeling, West Virginia. Aken, adopted by Mexican movie actress Lupe Mayorga, grew up in the neighboring town of Madera and his song chronicled the hardships faced by the migrant farm workers he saw as a child. Aken also made his first TV appearance playing guitar on the old country-western show at The Fresno Barn.
A: Yes
Rationale: The input sentence is correctly recognized as answerable or not because the answer to the question is 'Bill Aken' and it is present in the context so it is a positive example.
Q: proper question: When political inequality is smaller, more waste and pollution is? 
 disfluent question: What would er when political inequality is smaller, more waste and pollution is? 
 context: The smaller the economic inequality, the more waste and pollution is created, resulting in many cases, in more environmental degradation. This can be explained by the fact that as the poor people in the society become more wealthy, it increases their yearly carbon emissions. This relation is expressed by the Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC).[not in citation given] It should be noted here however that in certain cases, with great economic inequality, there is nonetheless not more waste and pollution created as the waste/pollution is cleaned up better afterwards (water treatment, filtering, ...).... Also note that the whole of the increase in environmental degradation is the result of the increase of emissions per person being multiplied by a multiplier. If there were fewer people however, this multiplier would be lower, and thus the amount of environmental degradation would be lower as well. As such, the current high level of population has a large impact on this as well. If (as WWF argued), population levels would start to drop to a sustainable level (1/3 of current levels, so about 2 billion people), human inequality can be addressed/corrected, while still not resulting in an increase of environmental damage.
A:
No