In this task, you're given a question, along with a context passage. The passage will not have a direct answer to the question, but can include some information and a clue for the answer. Assuming you can only obtain information about one entity in the passage, your job is to determine whether information from the passage can be used to answer the question. Indicate your choice as `a` for Yes or `b` for No.

[EX Q]: Question: Why did Edward VI order the destruction of 'Popish Superstition'? Passage:Until 1548 the interior of the building would have resembled the interior of any medieval church, with a rood screen separating the chancel from the nave (projections to support the screen can still be seen on the piers either side of the nave on the west side of the crossing). It is not known if there were ever wall paintings, but successive generations of plaster and whitewash over the last five centuries will have long concealed any which may have existed. In 1548 Edward VI ordered the destruction of all aspects of ‘Popish Superstition’ within the churches of his realm. The Jerseymen, strongly influenced by Huguenot immigrants fleeing persecution in France, carried out the King's orders with zeal, and all altars, fonts, holy water stoups and piscinas were removed, the rood screen was dismantled, the stained glass smashed and all but one bell was taken from the tower. A huge triple-decker pulpit was erected in the crossing and pews were arranged around it. Seven galleries were built, including one reserved for smokers. In spite of the return of Anglican worship in the 17th century, the church continued in this state until the 1860s, by which time it had fallen into considerable disrepair. A major project of restoration was undertaken to repair and re-order the building after the conventions of the Church of England. The pulpit was replaced by a much more modest affair at the north west corner of the crossing, the galleries were broken up, the pews were taken out and replaced by a new set facing the restored altar at the east end. The original font, left in the churchyard, was given to Grouville Parish Church and a new font installed. An extension was made to the west end of the Nave, and a new gallery was installed there and in the South Transept. New choir stalls were erected in the chancel. In 1930 these were replaced by another new set as a memorial to Charles George Renouf, a Jurat of the Royal Court (the stalls they replaced were given to St Andrew's Church). At the same time the level of the Chancel floor was raised. The South Chapel was re-ordered in 1952 as a memorial to Matthew le Marinel, Rector of St Helier and Dean of Jersey during the German Occupation (1940–45), and again in 2004 to make it more ‘user-friendly’. In 1997 a glass screen was erected to separate the nave extension from the rest of the church to create a narthex (reception area), new glass doors were installed at the west end and the font was moved from the west end to its original position by the North Door.

[EX A]: a

[EX Q]: Question: Which French naval officer who commanded raids from Isle de France against British merchant ships joined the French navy first? Passage:During the Napoleonic wars, Île de France became a base from which the French navy, including squadrons under Rear Admiral Linois or Commodore Jacques Hamelin, and corsairs such as Robert Surcouf, organised raids on British merchant ships. The raids (see Battle of Pulo Aura and Mauritius campaign of 1809–1811) continued until 1810 when the British sent a strong expedition to capture the island. The first British attempt, in August 1810, to attack Grand Port resulted in a French victory, one celebrated on the Arc de Triomphe in Paris. A subsequent and much larger attack launched in December of the same year from Rodrigues, which had been captured a year earlier, was successful. The British landed in large numbers in the north of the island and rapidly overpowered the French, who capitulated (see Invasion of Isle de France). In the Treaty of Paris (1814), the French ceded Île de France together with its territories including Rodrigues and Seychelles to Great Britain. The island then reverted to its former name, 'Mauritius'.

[EX A]: b

[EX Q]: Question: When was the critic who coined the term "rockumentaries" born? Passage:Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times gave the film three stars out of four and wrote that "the musical scenes are the best rock coverage since 'Woodstock.' The sound is first rate, for one thing, and director Pierre Adidge has some idea of why Cocker electrifies a crowd." Vincent Canby of The New York Times called the film a "most satisfying, record-album of a movie" which "patronizes neither its audience nor its stars ... It is uncluttered, one of the best concert films so far." A review in Variety said, "Considerable technical expertise has gone into this production, and though the objective may be clear, it just hasn't turned out to be another 'Woodstock,' possibly because Joe Cocker's personality isn't all that endearing." Gene Siskel of the Chicago Tribune rated the film three stars out of four and wrote, "'Mad Dogs' is distinguishable from other 'rockumentaries' because it deals almost exclusively with the musician and his music. There are few side trips to cultural comments." Robert Hilburn of the Los Angeles Times stated, "As a film, 'Mad Dogs and Englishmen' is a good concert. For much of the picture's 114 minutes, the camera is on Joe Cocker, by most standards the best and most exciting singer in rock music ... But 'Mad Dogs and Englishmen,' unfortunately, fails in the end to rise above this interesting, but clearly limited historical summary of the Cocker tour. As a film, it doesn't establish its own importance." A negative review by Tom Zito of The Washington Post advised readers to "Forget the film and try the record," explaining, "What emerges from all this is roughly two hours of footage that looks terrible on the screen and sounds almost as bad. The film is projected in an annoying square format, except for the moments when the screen area is broken up into some poorly coordinated split-screen effects. The camerawork is often sloppy ... the whole thing winds up looking and sounding like a cheap, imitation (indoor) 'Woodstock.'" James D. White of The Monthly Film Bulletin declared that "The music itself is excellent," but "The film's information content is minimal; and one's heart sinks as the screen is split into a double image for the first number and as the mandatory shots—of excited fans, of joint-rolling in a hotel bedroom, of an interview with a vacuous groupie—are inevitably wheeled out."

[EX A]:
b