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: It is for a cover letter, where I want to express my interest in the position and also to indicate that my profile matches the requirement. I find the proposed job interesting and matched by my profile and career goal. First, does "I find the proposed job interesting" sound too ego-centric? Second, shall I break the sentence into two or keep it compact in one? Third, any better way for saying that my profile meets their requirements? Any help on any of these questions will be appreciated. ////// 
Answer: Oh my. About the only thing good I can say about your cover letter is that you knew to ask for help. Your original statement doesn't convey what it literally says. The primary point any reader is going to take away is "English is not my first language and I have difficulty communicating." masarah's improvement is... an improvement. But it's not going to get you the job in a competitive market. The awkward word choice and sentence construction is gone, although it still is passive and overly wordy. Worse, it still gives the distinct impression that you're sending the same cover letter to dozens of companies, and probably didn't even read the requirements that you say you meet. The primary problem is that you're trying to evaluate your own suitability for the position. That simply won't fly. For one thing, it implies that the recruiter or HR department is redundant, which is going to make a bad impression on the first person to see your resume, even if it were true. Bigger issue: why would they trust your assessment, since you're obviously biased (you want them to offer you the job). My high school English teacher (English is my first language, so this was a writing course, not a foreign language course) gave the advice "show, don't tell", and this applies in this situation. Don't tell them "My profile matches the requirements." or "My experience matches the requirements." Instead pull a couple highlights from your resume that you feel give you the necessary background, and say something like "I look forward to applying my experience taking notes in class to making sure your medical records are clear and concise and don't miss any important details." Of course, you should talk about your actual experience and the tasks that you will do in the position you are applying for. Same thing goes for expressing interest in the position. You did some research on what the company does, right? You don't want to say, "I'm interested in this position because it meets my career goals." Instead, "I'm excited about joining your team that is on the cutting edge of research in whatever." or "I feel that the work your company does in providing education to the unemployed is vitally important. I would love to help give people a second chance at life." Make it specific to the work this position entails, and your prior related experience. Let them draw the conclusion that you're a good fit. If you want to make it easy for the recruiter to check that you meet the requirements, use a highlighter on your resume. But that's not what a cover letter is for.

A: yes
****
Q: Question: Everybody deals with this phenomenon daily but I had my curiousity piqued when someone claimed that punishing the many for the actions of the few was just called "group punishment." Group Punishment is simply punishing a large group of people. Is there a specific word for when a large group is punished because of the actions of the few? Such as in the following: Little Jimmy wasn't happy when the entire class was forced to work through recess because of 3 kids getting into a fight yesterday. 
Answer: Though probably not as a good a choice as collective punishment, the word intimidation could also work in some cases. Groups of people are commonly punished in order to intimidate the majority.

A: no
****
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: My first thought for this would be charlatan:- A person who makes elaborate, fraudulent, and often voluble claims to skill or knowledge; a quack or fraud. [American Heritage Dictionary via The Free Dictionary] Another possibility would be mountebank:- a boastful unscrupulous pretender [Merriam-Webster].

A:
yes
****