In this task, you will be presented with a context passage, a question about that paragraph, and a possible answer to that question. The task is to check the validity of the answer. Answer with "Yes" or "No".

Input: Consider Input: Crusaders, Mamelukes, and Turks: The Crusaders established a feudal Christian state with Godfrey at its head. They built many impressive churches during the term of the first Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, but in 1187 they were driven out by Muslim forces under the great warrior Saladin. During the Sixth Crusade (1228– 1229), the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II managed to secure Jerusalem for the Christians by negotiation. The Christians, however, could not hold the city. After they lost Jerusalem, a Mongol invasion swept through, and in 1244 the Mameluke dynasty of Egypt took control, ruling Jerusalem for the next 250 years. The city struggled to rebuild from Crusader wars and invasions. Much of the best Islamic architecture in the city was constructed in the Mameluke era, but the past thousand years had taken their toll: Jerusalem was unable to regain the prosperity it had enjoyed in earlier times. In the early 16th century, the Ottoman Turkish Empire was advancing through the Middle East. Jerusalem fell to the Ottomans in 1517, remaining under their control for 400 years. Suleiman the Magnificent rebuilt the walls and gates in the form they retain to this day. Fountains, inns, religious schools, and barracks were constructed. But when Suleiman died, his empire, including Jerusalem, began a long period of decline. The Holy City remained a backwater until the 19th century, when renewed interest among Christian pilgrims made it the destination of thousands of travelers each year. <sep>What happened to Jerusalem after the Christians lost it?<sep>The Mameluke dynasty took control and struggled to rebuild it.

Output: No


Input: Consider Input: While this process moved along, diplomacy continued its rounds. Direct pressure on the Taliban had proved unsuccessful. As one NSC staff note put it, "Under the Taliban, Afghanistan is not so much a state sponsor of terrorism as it is a state sponsored by terrorists." In early 2000, the United States began a high-level effort to persuade Pakistan to use its influence over the Taliban. In January 2000, Assistant Secretary of State Karl Inderfurth and the State Department's counterterrorism coordinator, Michael Sheehan, met with General Musharraf in Islamabad, dangling before him the possibility of a presidential visit in March as a reward for Pakistani cooperation. Such a visit was coveted by Musharraf, partly as a sign of his government's legitimacy. He told the two envoys that he would meet with Mullah Omar and press him on  Bin Laden. They left, however, reporting to Washington that Pakistan was unlikely in fact to do anything," given what it sees as the benefits of Taliban control of Afghanistan." President Clinton was scheduled to travel to India. The State Department felt that he should not visit India without also visiting Pakistan. The Secret Service and the CIA, however, warned in the strongest terms that visiting Pakistan would risk the President's life. Counterterrorism officials also argued that Pakistan had not done enough to merit a presidential visit. But President Clinton insisted on including Pakistan in the itinerary for his trip to South Asia. His one-day stopover on March 25, 2000, was the first time a U.S. president had been there since 1969. At his meeting with Musharraf and others, President Clinton concentrated on tensions between Pakistan and India and the dangers of nuclear proliferation, but also discussed  Bin Laden. President Clinton told us that when he pulled Musharraf aside for a brief, one-on-one meeting, he pleaded with the general for help regarding  Bin Laden." I offered him the moon when I went to see him, in terms of better relations with the United States, if he'd help us get  Bin Laden and deal with another issue or two." The U.S. effort continued. <sep>What did President Clinton's visit with Pakistan include?<sep>Tensions between Pakistan and India

Output: Yes


Input: Consider Input: Take a look at this train in Figure 1.11. It looks very futuristic. What do you notice about it? Did you notice that the train has no wheels? How can a train have no wheels? It doesn't need wheels. It actually floats, or levitates, just above the track. Magnets enable the train to do this. This is not a normal train. This is a maglev train. The word maglev stands for magnetic levitation. Because it has no wheels, there is no friction. Some magnets hold the train up. Other magnets are used to move the train forward. This train can go very fast. It can reach speeds up to 480 kilometers (300 miles) per hour! Magnets are pretty cool. What exactly is a magnet? How is it able to exert such force? <sep>What do you observe about the train in Figure 1.11?<sep>It has no wheels


Output: Yes


