Input: This is the story of a young girl and her dog. The young girl and her dog set out a trip into the woods one day. Upon entering the woods the girl and her dog found that the woods were dark and cold. The girl was a little scared and was thinking of turning back, but yet they went on. The girl's dog was acting very interested in what was in the bushes up ahead. To both the girl and the dog's surprise, there was a small brown bear resting in the bushes. The bear was not surprised and did not seem at all interested in the girl and her dog. The bear looked up at the girl and it was almost as if he was smiling at her. He then rested his head on his bear paws and went back to sleep. The girl and the dog kept walking and finally made it out of the woods. To this day the girl does not know why the bear was so friendly and to this day she has never told anyone about the meeting with the bear in the woods. 

Does the response "A bear" correctly answer the question "What animal was the girl's dog interested in?"?
***
Output: yes


Input:  Bin Laden and his aides did not need a very large sum to finance their planned attack on America. The 9/11 plotters eventually spent somewhere between $400,000 and $500,000 to plan and conduct their attack. Consistent with the importance of the project, al Qaeda funded the plotters. KSM provided his operatives with nearly all the money they needed to travel to the United States, train, and live. The plotters' tradecraft was not especially sophisticated, but it was good enough. They moved, stored, and spent their money in ordinary ways, easily defeating the detection mechanisms in place at the time. The origin of the funds remains unknown, although we have a general idea of how al Qaeda financed itself during the period leading up to 9/11. General Financing As we explained in chapter 2,  Bin Laden did not fund al Qaeda through a personal fortune and a network of businesses in Sudan. Instead, al Qaeda relied primarily on a fund-raising network developed over time. The CIA now estimates that it cost al Qaeda about $30 million per year to sustain its activities before 9/11 and that this money was raised almost entirely through donations. For many years, the United States thought  Bin Laden financed al Qaeda's expenses through a vast personal inheritance.  Bin Laden purportedly inherited approximately $300 million when his father died, and was rumored to have had access to these funds to wage jihad while in Sudan and Afghanistan and to secure his leadership position in al Qaeda. In early 2000, the U.S. government discovered a different reality: roughly from 1970 through 1994,  Bin Laden received about $1 million per year-a significant sum, to be sure, but not a $300 million fortune that could be used to fund jihad. Then, as part of a Saudi government crackdown early in the 1990s, the  Bin Laden family was forced to find a buyer for Usama's share of the family company in 1994. The Saudi government subsequently froze the proceeds of the sale. This action had the effect of divesting  Bin Laden of what otherwise might indeed have been a large fortune. Nor were  Bin Laden's assets in Sudan a source of money for al Qaeda. When  Bin Laden lived in Sudan from 1991 to 1996, he owned a number of businesses and other assets. 

Does the response "Bin Laden received about $1 million per year-a significant sum" correctly answer the question "What did U.S. government erroneously believe about Bin Laden's ji-had?"?
***
Output: no


Input: (CNN) -- Beyond skateboards, Silicon Valley and hippies, California has a trendsetting streak of a different kind. The state has been first to pass major public health initiatives that have spread throughout the country. California was first to require smog checks for clean air, pass anti-tobacco initiatives and bike helmets laws. While these laws were met with skepticism and ridicule, they've often become standard practice in other states. The Golden State was first to ban smoking in workplaces, bars and restaurants in 1998. Now similar rules exist throughout the country. Some advocates tout the state as a forward-thinking vanguard in which its health and safety laws are routinely emulated by other states. "There have been progressive legislations in tobacco, environment and obesity prevention," said Mark Horton, a lecturer at the University of California Berkeley School of Public Health. "In some respect, the rest of the country looks to California as a laboratory for moving forward with those various types of initiatives." But some critics liken the Golden State to a nanny state. California has 151,002 health and safety laws. "It never ends," said Laer Pearce, who works in public affairs in Orange County. "Every year, several hundred bills come through and dozens of them tell us how to live our lives." Starting in January, 760 new California laws went into effect -- for example, the importing of shark fins is prohibited, student athletes are required to have medical clearance after suffering a head injury, teens are banned from using tanning booths and the sale of caffeinated beer is forbidden. There's a perception that California has "more folks who are health-oriented and more health-minded," said Horton, former director of the California Department of Public Health. It's not just workout fanatics hanging out at Muscle Beach, Sierra Club members hiking mountains or the uber-health-conscious touting organic foods. Californians in general tend to have healthier habits, ranking 10th for physical activity, fourth for healthy blood pressure and fifth for a diet high in fruits and vegetables compared with other states, according to America's Health Rankings. 

Does the response "Require smog checks for clean air, pass anti-tobacco initiatives and bike helmets laws" correctly answer the question "What major public health initiatives were first passed in California?"?
***
Output:
yes