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.

proper question: What wasn't the goal of Braddock's expedition? 
 disfluent question: When didn't er what wasn't the goal of Braddock's expedition? 
 context: News of the two battles reached England in August. After several months of negotiations, the government of the Duke of Newcastle decided to send an army expedition the following year to dislodge the French. They chose Major General Edward Braddock to lead the expedition. Word of the British military plans leaked to France well before Braddock's departure for North America. In response, King Louis XV dispatched six regiments to New France under the command of Baron Dieskau in 1755. The British, intending to blockade French ports, sent out their fleet in February 1755, but the French fleet had already sailed. Admiral Edward Hawke detached a fast squadron to North America in an attempt to intercept the French.
No

proper question: Who wrote that its difficult to formulate a definition of grammatical niceties? 
 disfluent question: Who wrote that its difficult to produce no no formulate a definition of grammatical niceties? 
 context: LeGrande writes that the formulation of a single all-encompassing definition of the term is extremely difficult, if not impossible. In reviewing the voluminous literature on the subject, the student of civil disobedience rapidly finds himself surrounded by a maze of semantical problems and grammatical niceties. Like Alice in Wonderland, he often finds that specific terminology has no more (or no less) meaning than the individual orator intends it to have. He encourages a distinction between lawful protest demonstration, nonviolent civil disobedience, and violent civil disobedience.
No

proper question: Why must -1 be excluded in order to preserve the uniqueness of the fundamental theorem? 
 disfluent question: What theorem actually why must -1 be excluded in order to preserve the uniqueness of the fundamental theorem? 
 context: A prime number (or a prime) is a natural number greater than 1 that has no positive divisors other than 1 and itself. A natural number greater than 1 that is not a prime number is called a composite number. For example, 5 is prime because 1 and 5 are its only positive integer factors, whereas 6 is composite because it has the divisors 2 and 3 in addition to 1 and 6. The fundamental theorem of arithmetic establishes the central role of primes in number theory: any integer greater than 1 can be expressed as a product of primes that is unique up to ordering. The uniqueness in this theorem requires excluding 1 as a prime because one can include arbitrarily many instances of 1 in any factorization, e.g., 3, 1 · 3, 1 · 1 · 3, etc. are all valid factorizations of 3.

No