Given the Question and Answer pair, detect whether the answer is acceptable or not. Denote acceptable answer as "yes", otherwise denote as "no". An acceptable answer is consistent with the context in question, detailed, long, and uses general knowledge of English. Answers that are not definite and suggest a variety of options are not acceptable answers.

Ex Input:
Question: I just realized that I've never needed to use 31th or 31st in my four years English study. So which one is correct, and what about other alternatives? 31th or 31st 101th or 101st 1001th or 1001st Can I also use that way everywhere in the same way (for example, ordinal numbers in math)? 
Answer: The numerals with endings are merely abbreviations for the words written out as text. When in doubt, write the word out. Thirty-first becomes 31st, eleventh 11th, forty-second 42nd, fiftieth 50th, and so on.

Ex Output:
yes


Ex Input:
Question: English isn't my mother tongue, and when we recently talked to a native speaker (during some company audit), he pointed out that the plural word "trainings" is actually wrong (he pointed that it is a very common mistake and was almost amused by it). I couldn't understand why and wondered what the correct plural of "training" would be. Online Dictionaries/Thesaurus don't answer it, so it's probably another opinion-based statement. I haven't found a source to back it up, though. 
Answer: I agree with Mick that training is an uncountable noun. In the example given by Mr. Fine of a specific training event allowing training to become countable, I disagree. In the case of becoming countable, the portion being counted is the event. Therefor, it would be "there are multiple training events available at the pavilion" (or whatever). I see many cases where much effort is made to "fix" the plural when a simple rewording will eliminate the contentious context and allow an, arguably, better flow by using the standard form.

Ex Output:
no


Ex Input:
Question: I often read the expression "would of" used instead of "would have". Each time I read it I get annoyed so I googled it and found out -as I expected- that it is an incorrect way to say "would have". Now, there are a lot of brilliant slang words/expressions, so my question is, why do people use this one? It's so annoying to read, stupid and clearly wrong, it is pointless, why did they come up with this expression? Edit: I don't think my question is a duplicate as I didn't ask how can somebody use it (since I know it's incorrect and I know that I can use it with commas giving it a different meaning) but I asked why and how people came up with this expression. 
Answer: Correction: what annoys you is people writing "would of" when they are saying /wdv/, which is the standard pronunciation of the contraction would've. The vowel of the preposition "of" is almost always reduced in actual speech, yielding /v/. Thus "would've" and "would of" are homophones. So no surprise that some people spell it that way, even though it makes no grammatical sense. Would've can be even further reduced to /wd/, which some people spell woulda as a kind of phonetic eye dialect to represent actual speech or set an informal tone. The same goes for the modals, shoulda, coulda, musta. Spelling as it sounds can yield amusing results: Along the way the details of his past are sordid out and he realizes that what he once thought about his parents isn't the truth at all. Amazon.com Review. A speaker of British English, of course, would never write sorted in this manner, but with an American flapped t, it's a perfect fit.

Ex Output:

yes