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.

Q: Question: I am creating a computer game in which the character needs to consume food in order to not starve to death. In the game I can display the level of how much food the character currently needs via "hunger level" - the higher this value, the more desperately the character needs food. But what I want now is to turn that around, so that this level tells how full the stomach of the character is. In German we have a word for that, "Sattigung", which means how full my stomach is (or better: how full it feels to me), it is basically the opposite of hunger. Is there a similar word in English, which means exactly that, the opposite of hunger? It might be something like "saturation", but from what I can tell this word is usually used in a technical context, like in "the saturation of a color". Can I use that "saturation" to describe the opposite of hunger of a human or animal, or is there a better word for that? 
Answer: Stomach-Level Stomach-level suggests the actual level to which the stomach is full. Native English speakers will imagine the stomach as a pot or container which is literally full 'up to here' - full to a certain point. Satiety is a correct term but may not be understood by all users as it's a rather advanced word. Satisfaction is a bit abstract and not so much to do with literally 'how full you are' but rather the pleasing effect that the food had on you. If you want to use stomach level, it could also be used for hunger level. One term could fulfil both functions. Then if hungry, it might also say 'hungry' or if full, it could say 'full' or 'sated' (sated is also a bit of an advanced word). Or for very full it could say 'stuffed', which is humorous.

A: no
****
Q: Question: I'm referring to the peculiar habit I sometimes see in formal documents, where a number is given numerically after it's spelled out. It seems quite redundant: I need five (5) kumquats, stat! (Though it isn't always in a legal context, might it be related to this answer on this question?) 
Answer: The redundancy is presumably intended to reduce typos, forgery, and other types of error or manipulation in order to make the intent as clear as possible. It is known professionally as a CYA. It's obvious what my intent is when I rather carelessly write an I.O.U. for sevum kumquats, but alas, sevum is not really a word and opens up our contract to litigation. Adding the numeral 7 in parenthesis after sevum clarifies the intent. Similarly, if I were to write an I.O.U. for 3 kumquats, one could easily change that 3 to an 8, but it is far more difficult to make three look like eight. The practice appears to be a legal tradition rather than a universally honored rule. If you've ever written a check (known as a cheque to the Queen), you've written out a number with words and followed it with a numeral (albeit without parenthesis).

A: yes
****
Q: Question: I believe there is a term for a person who uses 'expert sounding' terminology and exudes confidence, even when their actual abilities are significantly short of their 'presentation'. Using 'wine' a subject.... if a person described a taste as: Magnificent bouquet, the esters resonate with hints of mulberry and asparagus. This must be an oak-matured red from Bordeaux. Perhaps.... 2003 vintage, that was a year when unusual rainfall produced an outstanding crop that had the same rich tannins. A person describing the wine like that has apparent confidence, apparent technical expertise, and so on. Yet, if he was a fraud, and knew nothing about wines, and the "wine" was really vinegar.... what would you call that person? Additionally, this would not be a one-off thing. This would be a person who consistently "bamboozles" people, and only when you dig below the posturing, or put them in the company of a 'real' expert, do you see the reality. A fraud, a cheat, an imposter. Those would be true, but I'm sure there's a word which also covers the confidence, charisma, and presentation style too. I just can't think of it. 
Answer: We can call this person a poseur or poser. The Wikipedia page provides a fairly good explanation of the term, its use, and its etymology. Pronouncing it as "poser" sounds hip in a surferish subculture way, while pronouncing it as "poseur" (Frenching it up, so to speak) can sound, ironically enough, affected. But appropriate when someone's showing false pedantry (not a single word, but a useful and relevant phrase), especially about French wine.

A:
no
****