Given a paragraph from a Wikipedia article about some topic, and a question related to the topic, determine whether the question is answerable from the paragraph. If the question is answerable, answer "True", otherwise, answer "False".

Ex Input:
Illegal pinning methods include using the ropes for leverage and hooking the opponent's clothing, which are therefore popular cheating methods for heels, unless certain stipulations make such an advantage legal. Such pins as these are rarely seen by the referee (as they have to see if their shoulders are down) and are subsequently often used by heels and on occasion by cheating faces to win matches. Even if it is noticed, it is rare for such an attempt to result in a disqualification (see below), and instead it simply results in nullification of the pin attempt, so the heel wrestler rarely has anything to lose for trying it, anyway. Question: If a wrestler is reaching for a rope and puts their hand on the mat to crawl, what might the referee mistake this as?

Ex Output:
False


Ex Input:
The last centuries of philosophy have seen vigorous questions regarding the arguments for God's existence raised by such philosophers as Immanuel Kant, David Hume and Antony Flew, although Kant held that the argument from morality was valid. The theist response has been either to contend, as does Alvin Plantinga, that faith is "properly basic", or to take, as does Richard Swinburne, the evidentialist position. Some theists agree that none of the arguments for God's existence are compelling, but argue that faith is not a product of reason, but requires risk. There would be no risk, they say, if the arguments for God's existence were as solid as the laws of logic, a position summed up by Pascal as "the heart has reasons of which reason does not know." A recent theory using concepts from physics and neurophysiology proposes that God can be conceptualized within the theory of integrative level. Question: Who did NOT take an evidentialist position, Richard Swinburne or David Hume?

Ex Output:
True


Ex Input:
Ferdinand refused and went to Valencia instead of Madrid. Here, on 17 April, General Elio invited the King to reclaim his absolute rights and put his troops at the King's disposition. The king abolished the Constitution of 1812. He followed this act by dissolving the two chambers of the Spanish Parliament on 10 May. Thus began six years (1814–1820) of absolutist rule, but the constitution was reinstated during the Trienio Liberal, a period of three years of liberal government in Spain from 1820–1823. Question: In what month did Espartero's rule end?

Ex Output:

False