Question:
From a human point of view, a habitat is where you live. It might be your city, town, or neighborhood. Your habitat can be altered. Most people move a few times in their lives. But a plant cannot move. An animal may not be suited to live in another area. A habitat is the natural home or environment of an organism. Humans often destroy the habitats of other organisms. The loss of habitat can cause the extinction of species. Extinction is when a species disappears forever. Once a species is extinct, it can never be brought back. Humans cause habitat destruction in many ways. There are two common ways this happens. Land may be cleared. Another way is when an animal or plant is brought to an area where it does not belong.  After reading the above, is "Humans can move and change habitats, but plants can't move so they cannot change their habitat themselves." the correct answer to the question "How do people's habitats differ from a plant's?"? OPTIONS:
- no
- yes

Answer:
yes
Input: The explosion, while killing one of the Cossacks and seriously wounding the driver and people on the sidewalk, had only damaged the bulletproof carriage, a gift from Napoleon III of France. The emperor emerged shaken but unhurt. Rysakov was captured almost immediately. Police Chief Dvorzhitsky heard Rysakov shout out to someone else in the gathering crowd. The surrounding guards and the Cossacks urged the emperor to leave the area at once rather than being shown the site of the explosion. Nevertheless, a second young member of the Narodnaya Volya, Ignacy Hryniewiecki, standing by the canal fence, raised both arms and threw something at the emperor's feet. He was alleged to have shouted, "It is too early to thank God". Dvorzhitsky was later to write: 
"How many times was the emperor attacked?" is "Three times"?

OPTIONS:
- no
- yes
Output: no
Input: Reuters Holdings PLC said Michael Reupke resigned as general manager to pursue unspecified interests, a move the news organization termed an "amicable separation." Mr. Reupke, 52 years old and a 27-year Reuters veteran, had been the information-services company's general manager for only six months. His appointment to that post, which has senior administrative, staff and policy responsibilities, followed a several-year tenure as Reuters's editor in chief. No successor was named, and Mr. Reupke's duties will be split among three other senior Reuters executives, the company said. In a telephone interview, Mr. Reupke said his departure was for "personal reasons," which he declined to specify. "There is no business reason for my departure," nor any disagreement over policy, he added. He also rejected reports that his departure stemmed from disappointment the general manager's post hadn't also led to a board directorship at the London-based news organization. Mr. Reupke was one of three executives on Reuters's eight-person executive committee who didn't also serve on the company's board of directors. "If I were choosing the people of tomorrow, I would have chosen the people who are now on the board," he said. A Reuters spokesman said the departure reflects "no change in strategy or profits." Mark Shepperd, an analyst at UBS Philips & Drew in London, said, "I suspect (the departure) will be fairly irrelevant for the company. I would be very surprised if his departure signals any change in strategy or change in profit expectations." On London's Stock Exchange, Reuters shares rose five pence to 913 pence ($14.43). In the U.S. over-the-counter market, American depositary shares for Reuters, each representing three shares in the London market, closed unchanged at $43.875. The senior of the three executives who will assume Mr. Reupke's duties is Nigel Judah, 58, finance director and a Reuters board director. Peter Holland, 45, deputy general manager, becomes director of corporate affairs. And Patrick Mannix, 46, international technical manager, becomes director of group quality programs. 

Does the response "A disruptive impact" correctly answer the question "What impact has Reupke's departure had on Reuters?"?

OPTIONS:
- no
- yes
***
Output: no
Relying on an animal to come by is risky. A flower may have to wait a long time for the right animals to come by. What if one never passes close enough to the flower? Hoping the wind will blow is also risky for a plant. What if the wind does not blow? What if the blowing pollen does not land on another flower? The wind could even blow the pollen over the ocean where it is wasted. Giving free nectar is costly. It is not a good use of the plants energy. A plant uses a lot of energy to produce nectar. Some animals may just drink the nectar. They may not carry off any pollen in return. To improve their chances, plants evolved special traits. For example, they developed ways to hide their nectar. Only certain animals were able to get at the plants hidden nectar. These specific animals might be more likely to visit only flowers of the same species. This was also a benefit for some animals. Animals also evolved special traits to get to the nectar. 

Question: "What are ways of transferring pollen?"

OPTIONS:
- no
- yes

Answer: "Conduction"

Response: no
Question:
The Agencies Confer When they learned a second plane had struck the World Trade Center, nearly everyone in the White House told us, they immediately knew it was not an accident. The Secret Service initiated a number of security enhancements around the White House complex. The officials who issued these orders did not know that there were additional hijacked aircraft, or that one such aircraft was en route to Washington. These measures were precautionary steps taken because of the strikes in New York. The FAA and White House Teleconferences. The FAA, the White House, and the Defense Department each initiated a multiagency teleconference before 9:30. Because none of these teleconferences-at least before 10:00- included the right officials from both the FAA and Defense Department, none succeeded in meaningfully coordinating the military and FAA response to the hijackings. At about 9:20, security personnel at FAA headquarters set up a hijacking teleconference with several agencies, including the Defense Department. The NMCC officer who participated told us that the call was monitored only periodically because the information was sporadic, it was of little value, and there were other important tasks. The FAA manager of the teleconference also remembered that the military participated only briefly before the Pentagon was hit. Both individuals agreed that the teleconference played no role in coordinating a response to the attacks of 9/11. Acting Deputy Administrator Belger was frustrated to learn later in the morning that the military had not been on the call. At the White House, the video teleconference was conducted from the Situation Room by Richard Clarke, a special assistant to the president long involved in counterterrorism. Logs indicate that it began at 9:25 and included the CIA; the FBI; the departments of State, Justice, and Defense; the FAA; and the White House shelter. The FAA and CIA joined at 9:40. The first topic addressed in the White House video teleconference-at about 9:40-was the physical security of the President, the White House, and federal agencies. Immediately thereafter it was reported that a plane had hit the Pentagon. We found no evidence that video teleconference participants had any prior information that American 77 had been hijacked and was heading directly toward Washington.  After reading the above, is "15 minutes" the correct answer to the question "How many minutes had elapsed before the FAA joined the video teleconference call conducted by Richard Clarke?"? OPTIONS:
- no
- yes

Answer:

yes