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.

Ex Input:
Question: I'm describing what an opiate addict looks like before recovery. Instead of saying "he looked like a vampire," I'd like to say something like "he looked [vampiric]." I actually just found out vampiric was a word, but I want something that sounds better (more colloquial/natural, I suppose) and covers a variety of traits (pale, emaciated, sickly, etc). Why I don't just use "vampiric": As @chepner commented: I think the idea is to find a word that isn't so "circular", and doesn't refer explicitly to vampires or require knowledge of vampires in context. If someone were to ask "What does a vampire look like?", then "It looks vampiric/vampirish" wouldn't be terribly helpful. I don't want to explicitly refer to drug addicts as vampires. I just want to capture those traits in the best way. 
Answer: There is always the tried and true "strung-out" or "cadaverous" or "corpselike" i like "he had the look of a worn and deflated pillowcase in need of a wash".

Ex Output:
no


Ex Input:
Question: I frequently encounter phrases like this: "It allows to apply these features to customisable sets of fonts". My question is whether this is proper English or not? In my mind, "it allows the application of ..." or "it allows one to apply ..." sound much better. I suspect that this is a Germanism (that would explain why I hear it so often), but it would be nice to know for sure. 
Answer: I just ran a Google Books ngram and saw that from 1800-2012 the incidence of It allows to has risen from 0.0000011% to 0.0000053%. The biggest rise was from 1980 until now: 0.000002%-0.0000053%. From what I can tell from the books in which this appears, the most recent are technical writing by non-native-speakers of English. A couple from the 19th century are legitimate English: the assembly may compel the observance of a proper decorum by all persons, whom it allows to be present at its proceedings. and It assembles more frequently, and at its own time, without any control from the king ; and it allows to him only a ... Jim's example, It allows to pass certain particles while trapping others, is certainly, as he says, unwieldy because it's not parallel: It allows to pass certain particles and {allows not / disallows} others. which is a style monster regardless of the parallel construction. It should be: It allows certain particles to pass {while trapping / but traps / but disallows} others. The syntax is so bad in that sentence that, however grammatically valid it is, Fowler would retch after reading it. Merely thinking it up would violate the admonition against secret sin in the Sermon on the Mount, and actually writing it for public consumption would cause the reader as much pain as would driving a wooden stake through the heart of the sleeping Dracula cause the vampire. Your conclusion that "'it allows the application of ...' or 'it allows one to apply ...' sound much better" is absolutely correct. That's what language is about in part: what it sounds like. If it sounds bad, it is bad, grammar be damned.

Ex Output:
yes


Ex Input:
Question: Should I write it like this? Or perhaps like this? Should I write it like this? or perhaps like this? What about after an exclamation mark or semicolon? 
Answer: The word after a question mark (or exclamation point) is capitalized if it starts a new sentence. If the next word does not start a new sentence, because the question mark is part of a quotation, a title, an interruption, etc., then it is not capitalized. Usually such things are set off with quotes, dashes, parentheses, or italics; but not always. Your option #2 is a single interrogative sentence with two parts and a question mark at the end of each part. This is rare today, but it was apparently a lot more common historically, when sentences were longer. It is not at all hard to find examples with the word or: Do you not know what beauty is? or do you not know whether you think him handsome? (1814) Who lives in a more elegant style? or receives more illustrious visitors? (1815) Should he anticipate the savages? or should he lie still, and abide their assault? (1822) Could you have done as much? you or any other man? or any other woman that ever breathed? (1833) Does the science of medicine prevent death? or the institution of government prevent crime? (1847) "Where are we scheduled to walk? or are we to have something to say about it ourselves?" (1896) These examples are all from the Corpus of Historical American English, which only goes back to 1810. There are no doubt plenty of examples in later decades I stopped looking but this way of writing questions has all but disappeared. I rather like it, but to some people it's just wrong, and to others it might seem literary or pretentious. Update: Consecutive sentences in the prologue of Shakespeare's Henry V contain a non-final question mark and a non-final exclamation point. [...] But pardon, and gentles all, The flat unraised spirits that have dared On this unworthy scaffold to bring forth So great an object: can this cockpit hold The vasty fields of France? or may we cram Within this wooden O the very casques That did affright the air at Agincourt? O, pardon! since a crooked figure may Attest in little place a million; And let us, ciphers to this great accompt, On your imaginary forces work.

Ex Output:

no