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 Q]: Question: So I thought I'm sure about this and my instincts say that: "If anyone has seen them .." would be right but then again when I said it like: "If anyone have seen them .." I started thinking which one would be the right one. Can you please guide me through which is the right one and why? P.S. English is not my first language. 
Answer: It's "if anyone has", because "anyone" functions as third person singular. It probably just seems right to use "have" because you would for any other number or person.
[EX A]: yes

[EX Q]: Question: This year there were: many more people much more people Alternatively: many fewer people much fewer people Which is considered better English? 
Answer: Both much and many can be used, but which is appropriate depends on whether the noun they're referring to is countable or not. With countable nouns, use many more or many fewer: I had many more bananas than Tom. I had many fewer nickels than Alice. With uncountable nouns, use much more or much less How much more fiber does a banana have than an apple? How much less water does this process use?.
[EX A]: yes

[EX Q]: Question: I was told in a Latin class that the name Christopher has Greek roots that mean "one who carries Christ". I assume that the Latin connection here is fero, which is the verb to carry. With that in mind, does the name Jennifer have a similar derivation? If so what would she be carrying? 
Answer: It's a perfect example of a false cognate pair that is created by a sort of linguistic homogenization. When we come across foreign words, we pronounce them with our own sounds, mapping a foreign sound to one natural to our own ear that seems close enough for our purposes. Unrelated sounds and syllables from unrelated languages might in this way each get mapped to a single native sound/syllable. In this way, we come to hear the sounds and syllables as related when they are not. Mesoamerican languages, for instance, did not have a "v" sound. Consequently, when learning Spanish, the natives of Central America had a devil of time with the fairly common v sound and ended up usually pronouncing it as a b. The b sound is related to the v sound, so it wasn't a subtle shift. In consequence, very often to this day words like "votar" (to vote) get pronounced identically with words like "botar" (to throw out) giving rise to numerous puns. When native Spanish speakers from Latin America learn English, they are often heard saying things like "Thank you bery much," as a result. But "bery," and its false homophones "berry" and "bury" have no shared ancestry. As a last point of interest, consider English spelling. It is so difficult precisely because speakers of English and the academic sources that safeguard the English language (Oxford English Dictionary, Merriam-Webster Dictionary, etc.) have made a general decision to preserve as best as possible the original spelling of the words in their original languages, making only occasional modifications to bring them into some kind of conventional conformity. So the Greek suffix - is conventionally transliterated as -pher, whereas the ending of Gwenhwyfar gets transliterated as -fer and the ending of aquifer stays as the Romans wrote it: -fer. This makes our spelling a bear to get a handle of, but it also locks the secret of most words' origins right into the words themselves. That means, once one has understood a bit of Latin, Greek, some common Celtic endings and a bit of German, one can almost always discern the origins of the word just by looking at it. Of course, it also means that we have to spend years and years memorizing spelling word lists and still relying on spellchecker far more than we care to admit.
[EX A]:
no