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.

proper question: Newton's Third Law asserts the inverse proportionality of acceleration to what? 
 disfluent question: Newton's Third Law asserts the inverse proportionality of kinematic measurements, oops I mean, of acceleration to what? 
 context: Newton's Second Law asserts the direct proportionality of acceleration to force and the inverse proportionality of acceleration to mass. Accelerations can be defined through kinematic measurements. However, while kinematics are well-described through reference frame analysis in advanced physics, there are still deep questions that remain as to what is the proper definition of mass. General relativity offers an equivalence between space-time and mass, but lacking a coherent theory of quantum gravity, it is unclear as to how or whether this connection is relevant on microscales. With some justification, Newton's second law can be taken as a quantitative definition of mass by writing the law as an equality; the relative units of force and mass then are fixed.
No

proper question: What acts in no particular direction? 
 disfluent question: Who no what acts in no particular direction? 
 context: Forces act in a particular direction and have sizes dependent upon how strong the push or pull is. Because of these characteristics, forces are classified as vector quantities. This means that forces follow a different set of mathematical rules than physical quantities that do not have direction (denoted scalar quantities). For example, when determining what happens when two forces act on the same object, it is necessary to know both the magnitude and the direction of both forces to calculate the result. If both of these pieces of information are not known for each force, the situation is ambiguous. For example, if you know that two people are pulling on the same rope with known magnitudes of force but you do not know which direction either person is pulling, it is impossible to determine what the acceleration of the rope will be. The two people could be pulling against each other as in tug of war or the two people could be pulling in the same direction. In this simple one-dimensional example, without knowing the direction of the forces it is impossible to decide whether the net force is the result of adding the two force magnitudes or subtracting one from the other. Associating forces with vectors avoids such problems.
No

proper question: What is another plague thought to have spread the same way? 
 disfluent question: Where or no make that what plague thought to have spread the same way? 
 context: The historian Francis Aidan Gasquet wrote about the 'Great Pestilence' in 1893 and suggested that it would appear to be some form of the ordinary Eastern or bubonic plague. He was able to adopt the epidemiology of the bubonic plague for the Black Death for the second edition in 1908, implicating rats and fleas in the process, and his interpretation was widely accepted for other ancient and medieval epidemics, such as the Justinian plague that was prevalent in the Eastern Roman Empire from 541 to 700 CE.

Yes

