In this task, you are given a passage and a question regarding that passage. You must determine whether or not the question is answerable from the given passage. If a question is answerable, output should be 'True', otherwise 'False'. You must not consider any other information that is not provided in the passage while labelling True or False.

Input: Consider Input: Passage: Extension causes the rock units as a whole to become longer and thinner. This is primarily accomplished through normal faulting and through the ductile stretching and thinning. Normal faults drop rock units that are higher below those that are lower. This typically results in younger units being placed below older units. Stretching of units can result in their thinning; in fact, there is a location within the Maria Fold and Thrust Belt in which the entire sedimentary sequence of the Grand Canyon can be seen over a length of less than a meter. Rocks at the depth to be ductilely stretched are often also metamorphosed. These stretched rocks can also pinch into lenses, known as boudins, after the French word for "sausage", because of their visual similarity. Question: Where does extension occur?

Output: False


Input: Consider Input: Passage: A particularly simple example of a probabilistic test is the Fermat primality test, which relies on the fact (Fermat's little theorem) that np≡n (mod p) for any n if p is a prime number. If we have a number b that we want to test for primality, then we work out nb (mod b) for a random value of n as our test. A flaw with this test is that there are some composite numbers (the Carmichael numbers) that satisfy the Fermat identity even though they are not prime, so the test has no way of distinguishing between prime numbers and Carmichael numbers. Carmichael numbers are substantially rarer than prime numbers, though, so this test can be useful for practical purposes. More powerful extensions of the Fermat primality test, such as the Baillie-PSW, Miller-Rabin, and Solovay-Strassen tests, are guaranteed to fail at least some of the time when applied to a composite number. Question: What is the name of one impressive continuation of the Carmichael primality test?

Output: False


Input: Consider Input: Passage: In regard to companies, the Court of Justice held in R (Daily Mail and General Trust plc) v HM Treasury that member states could restrict a company moving its seat of business, without infringing TFEU article 49. This meant the Daily Mail newspaper's parent company could not evade tax by shifting its residence to the Netherlands without first settling its tax bills in the UK. The UK did not need to justify its action, as rules on company seats were not yet harmonised. By contrast, in Centros Ltd v Erhversus-og Selkabssyrelsen the Court of Justice found that a UK limited company operating in Denmark could not be required to comply with Denmark's minimum share capital rules. UK law only required £1 of capital to start a company, while Denmark's legislature took the view companies should only be started up if they had 200,000 Danish krone (around €27,000) to protect creditors if the company failed and went insolvent. The Court of Justice held that Denmark's minimum capital law infringed Centros Ltd's freedom of establishment and could not be justified, because a company in the UK could admittedly provide services in Denmark without being established there, and there were less restrictive means of achieving the aim of creditor protection. This approach was criticised as potentially opening the EU to unjustified regulatory competition, and a race to the bottom in standards, like in the US where the state Delaware attracts most companies and is often argued to have the worst standards of accountability of boards, and low corporate taxes as a result. Similarly in Überseering BV v Nordic Construction GmbH the Court of Justice held that a German court could not deny a Dutch building company the right to enforce a contract in Germany on the basis that it was not validly incorporated in Germany. Although restrictions on freedom of establishment could be justified by creditor protection, labour rights to participate in work, or the public interest in collecting taxes, denial of capacity went too far: it was an "outright negation" of the right of establishment. However, in Cartesio Oktató és Szolgáltató bt the Court of Justice affirmed again that because corporations are created by law, they are in principle subject to any rules for formation that a state of incorporation wishes to impose. This meant that the Hungarian authorities could prevent a company from shifting its central administration to Italy while it still operated and was incorporated in Hungary. Thus, the court draws a distinction between the right of establishment for foreign companies (where restrictions must be justified), and the right of the state to determine conditions for companies incorporated in its territory, although it is not entirely clear why. Question: Who riled that member stated could not restrict a company from moving its seat of business without infringing TFEU article 49?


Output: False