In this task you are given a disfluent question, a proper question and a context. A disfluent question is a question that has some interruptions in it while framing and a proper question is the correct form of the question without any disfluency. Classify whether the question is answerable or not based on the given context.
--------
Question: proper question: What are responsibilities pharmacy technicians never deal with? 
 disfluent question: What does pharmacy legislation mandate no sorry tell me what are responsibilities pharmacy technicians never deal with? 
 context: In most countries, the dispensary is subject to pharmacy legislation; with requirements for storage conditions, compulsory texts, equipment, etc., specified in legislation. Where it was once the case that pharmacists stayed within the dispensary compounding/dispensing medications, there has been an increasing trend towards the use of trained pharmacy technicians while the pharmacist spends more time communicating with patients. Pharmacy technicians are now more dependent upon automation to assist them in their new role dealing with patients' prescriptions and patient safety issues.

Answer: No


Question: proper question: How many prime numbers exist? 
 disfluent question: How many composite numbers or no make that prime numbers exist? 
 context: There are infinitely many primes, as demonstrated by Euclid around 300 BC. There is no known simple formula that separates prime numbers from composite numbers. However, the distribution of primes, that is to say, the statistical behaviour of primes in the large, can be modelled. The first result in that direction is the prime number theorem, proven at the end of the 19th century, which says that the probability that a given, randomly chosen number n is prime is inversely proportional to its number of digits, or to the logarithm of n.

Answer: Yes


Question: proper question: Which council's investigation found no statistical failings? 
 disfluent question: Who were the no make that which council's investigation found no statistical failings? 
 context: On 23 June 2005, Rep. Joe Barton, chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce wrote joint letters with Ed Whitfield, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations demanding full records on climate research, as well as personal information about their finances and careers, from Mann, Bradley and Hughes. Sherwood Boehlert, chairman of the House Science Committee, said this was a misguided and illegitimate investigation apparently aimed at intimidating scientists, and at his request the U.S. National Academy of Sciences arranged for its National Research Council to set up a special investigation. The National Research Council's report agreed that there were some statistical failings, but these had little effect on the graph, which was generally correct. In a 2006 letter to Nature, Mann, Bradley, and Hughes pointed out that their original article had said that more widespread high-resolution data are needed before more confident conclusions can be reached and that the uncertainties were the point of the article.

Answer:
No