Question:
The Mummy 's Shroud is set in 1920 and tells the story of a team of archaeologists who come across the lost tomb of the boy Pharaoh Kah-To-Bey . The story begins with a flash back sequence to Ancient Egypt and we see the story of how Prem , a manservant of Kah-To-Bey , spirited away the boy when his father was killed in a palace coup and took him into the desert for protection . Unfortunately , the boy dies and is buried . The story then moves forward to 1920 and shows the expedition led by scientist Sir Basil Walden and business man Stanley Preston finding the tomb . They ignore the dire warning issued to them by Hasmid , a local Bedouin about the consequences for those that violate the tombs of Ancient Egypt and remove the bodies and the sacred shroud . Sir Basil is bitten by a snake just after finding the tomb . He recovers , but has a relapse after arriving back in Cairo . Preston takes advantage of this and commits him to an insane asylum , to take credit for finding the tomb and Prince 's mummy himself . Meanwhile , after being placed in the Cairo Museum , the mummy of Prem is revived when Hasmid chants the sacred oath on the shroud . The mummy then proceeds to go on a murderous rampage to kill off the members of the expedition , beginning with Sir Basil after he escapes from the asylum . One by one , those who assisted in removing the contents of the tomb to Cairo are eliminated by such grisly means as strangulation , being thrown out of windows , and having photographic acid thrown in their face .  After reading the above, is "A manservant who died in the desert after fleeing a coup in the palace where he works" the correct answer to the question "Who did the tomb belong to and how did he die?"? OPTIONS:
- no
- yes

Answer:
no
Input: The Washington Supreme Court is asking the Legislature to approve a $90 surcharge on a court filing fee to help provide legal help for the poor in civil cases, Chief Justice Gerry Alexander said Wednesday. "Some might say, why should we support this when we face tough financial times?" Alexander asked in his State of the Judiciary address to a joint session of the Legislature. "It seems to me in America, where we rejoice in the fact that we are a nation devoted to the rule of law, we should not ration access to justice." The recommendation comes from the court's Task Force on Civil Equal Justice Funding, created in 2001 to look for ways to cope with the sparse amount of money available for such cases. As the task force was studying the issue, $900,000 was cut from state support for civil equal justice services. That prompted the state's two main legal services providers - Columbia Legal Services and Northwest Justice Project - to cut their staffs, Alexander said. The change would increase the cost of filing a lawsuit in Superior Court to $200. The total fee would be split, with 54 percent going to counties and 46 percent going to the state for a newly created equal justice account. Alexander also requested money for five additional Superior Court judgeships and one additional District Court judgeships, arguing that increased caseloads require more judges. Two of the Superior Court judges and the District Court judge would be in Clark County, with one Superior Court judge added in the joint district that serves Benton and Franklin counties and one each in Kittitas and Kitsap counties. 
"What is the motive of the Washington Supreme Court in asking the Legislature to approve a $90 surcharge on a court filing fee?" is "They are looking for ways to cope with the sparse amount of money available to provide legal help for the poor in civil cases"?

OPTIONS:
- no
- yes
Output: yes
Input: Unfortunately, because the zooming is rather fast, it is easy to miss the rest of the sentence, so as you correctly note, some viewers got an incorrect impression. It would have been fair for Moore to point out this possible misinterpretation on his website. However, the claim of deliberate distortion is ludicrous for several reasons: a) Moore clearly states that "before he came to Flint", Heston gave an interview. In the excerpt from said interview, we can see that it is from March. If Moore wanted to deceive his viewers, why would he say this, and show the month the interview was published? b) Why should Moore leave the words "Clinton is on the Today Show" visible in the text, which is necessary to correctly interpret the highlighted part? I reviewed the sequence several times and it is perfectly possible to see this text without pausing. c) Both the "soccer mom" interview and the sequences showing the NRA rally make no effort to distort the fact that this rally happened months after the fact. The camera lingers on Bush/Cheney posters, and the protestor is quoted as saying that "we wanted to let the NRA know that we haven't forgotten about Kayla Rolland". You make the hysterical claim that the interview "may be faked" (on the basis that no name is shown for the interviewee), but if Moore had faked it, why the hell should he put this sentence in the protestor's mouth, which directly contradicts the conclusion that the rally happened hours after Kayla's death? Why did Moore, the masterful deveiver, not edit this sequence out? This makes no sense. Opinions may vary on how tasteless it was for Heston to hold a pro gun rally on the location of the nation's youngest school shooting months after the fact, but this sequence of "Bowling" is without doubt the most unfair to Heston. The claims of deliberate distortion don't hold up when viewing the whole scene, though -- as "Hanlon's Razor" states, one should never attribute to malice what can be attributed to incompetence. The somewhat inept editing of the NRA press release has led some viewers to wrong conclusions, which is unfortunate, but Moore's critics have no interest in viewing the matter fairly. Had they done so, Moore himself would probably have apologized for the gaffe. In any case, at no point does Moore make a false statement, in contradiction to claims by critics that his documentary is "full of lies". 

Does the response "March" correctly answer the question "When did Heston give an interview?"?

OPTIONS:
- no
- yes
***
Output: yes
Question:
Sometimes traits can vary from parent to offspring. These changes are due to mutations. Mutations are a random change. Mutations are natural. Some mutations are harmful. In this case, the organism may not live to reproduce. The trait will not be passed onto offspring. Others variations in traits have no effect on survival. Can some mutations be good for a living thing? Other mutations can have great benefits. Imagine being the first moth that can blend into its background. It would have a better chance of survival. A living thing that survives is likely to have offspring. If it does, it may pass the new trait on to its offspring. Thats good news for the offspring. The offspring may be more likely to survive. Mutations are one way living things adapt to new conditions.  After reading the above, is "Inheriting traits for survival" the correct answer to the question "What would make offspring more likely to survive?"? OPTIONS:
- no
- yes

Answer:

yes