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: How can I explain to people that the phrase off of is grammatically incorrect? I've heard this phrase used a lot, especially by Americans (though they aren't the only ones). In my understanding, off of should usually be replaced by off, as in, I took the book off the shelf as opposed to I took the book off of the shelf Am I wrong? Or is there perhaps some simple way I can explain this to most people? 
Answer: How can I explain to people that the phrase "off of" is grammatically incorrect? You can't, because it's not. There are thousands of examples of "off of" in the Corpus of Contemporary American English, not just in spoken English, but in magazines, newspapers, and academic journals as well. "Off of" is well-established as standard in American English. Plain "off" may be stylistically preferable in many cases, but it is simply not a rule of English grammar that if a word could be removed it must be removed. Some people seem to think that such a rule exists. It does not.

Ex Output:
yes


Ex Input:
Question: Is there a word for reverse homesickness? Let's say, if you visit a place, and you like it so much, you don't want to leave. 
Answer: The opposite of homesick is "Wanderlust" when you have a big desire for traveling or going to a journey and exploring the world. However there was an interesting comment in a forum about the opposite of homesickness: It's still homesick. "Boy, I am homesick!" "But you live at home." "Yeah, and I'm sick of it!" hope it helps.

Ex Output:
yes


Ex Input:
Question: I wrote this sentence: Why wouldn't it be valid? --and I realized that without the contraction it becomes: Why would it not be valid? As opposed to "why would not it be valid," as the contraction would imply. What's going on here? Why can I contract across the middle word this way? Or, to put it the other way, why can't I "de-contract" this without moving the not over by a word? 
Answer: Even though the standard term for these combinations of an auxiliary + -n't is "contractions", grammatically they act like single, indivisible words*; rather than like two words slurred together (though that was evidently their historical origin). This single word is a auxiliary, so it goes in the normal position for an auxiliary in an interrogative sentence: after the question-word and before the subject. Why wouldn't it be valid? Question word - auxiliary - subject - [rest of sentence] When you use "would not," on the other hand, you have two words: the auxiliary "would", and the distinct word "not" (a word that doesn't fit very well into the general part-of-speech categories). The auxiliary again goes into the normal position for an auxiliary. The word "not" has its own, different rules for where it goes in a sentence. Why would it not be valid? Question word - auxiliary - subject - [rest of sentence] *In fact, some linguists think the negative suffix in these words is best analyzed as an inflection in modern English, like the suffix "-s" used in third person.

Ex Output:

yes