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.
--------
Question: Question: I sometimes see the term "critical but stable" in the news. It is often used to describe someone who has been very seriously injured. For example (15 December 2019): "[A police officer] said the man who had been shot was in a "critical but stable " condition in hospital." I understand that "critically ill" means that life is in danger. Similarly "stable" is the opposite. Quotes from www.lexico.com critically To an extreme degree with a risk of death. 'two critically wounded people died in hospital'. 'critically ill patients who were awaiting surgery' stable (of a patient or their medical condition) not deteriorating in health after an injury or operation. 'he is now in a stable condition in hospital' What does "critical but stable" really mean? 
Answer: Trying to find a meaning in these words by following a definition is the wrong approach, as critical but stable is a kind of euphemism. Much in the same way as the wording "according to circumstances" is, depending on how it's being said, either a polite way of saying: "I have no idea!", or "I'm not going to tell you!". Most certainly, every patient's condition is "according to circumstances" (whatever the circumstances may be!), so basically saying that is nothing but saying: "Bugger off!", only more polite, and less troubling for people who are emotinally involved. Because after all, if the situation is good according to circumstances, that's quite positive, is it not! Similarly, when you say "critical", then that means as much as "that doesn't look good, I expect the person may die". You do not say that to either relatives or in public. You do not say that to, or nearby, the patient (awake or unconcious) either. Never, not ever. The consequences of saying such a thing may be terrible. Thus, when you are saying such a thing, you add "but stable" which in reality means nothing more but "we're currently not desperately trying to stop this bleeding, and we're currently not reanimating". But still, although the word "stable" has absolutely no meaning in terms of "condition will not change" (or even "condition will not change to the worse"), and usually people know very well that it is a kind of "lie", it is still very much appeasing the perceived situation for people directly involved.

Answer: no


Question: Question: Let's imagine a hypothetical business: Mistake Corp. Mistake Corp makes a lot of mistakes, and as it turns out, the reason they make these mistakes is typically the same. 90% of the time Mistake Corp makes a mistake, it's because of misinformation. I suppose misinformation is the opposite of a linchpin for Mistake Corp. I'd like to be able to use the word like so: "Misinformation is the [anti-linchpin] of Mistake Corp" What non-ambiguous word, other than "anti-linchpin", can I use to describe something that is a frequent cause for mistakes to those who aren't as English-savvy? 
Answer: Cognitive dissonance (Psychology) An uncomfortable mental state resulting from conflicting cognitions; usually resolved by changing some of the cognitions.

Answer: no


Question: Question: Background We have a motivational poster in our office that says: None of us is as smart as all of us. I think that it's grammatically incorrect, and here is my reasoning: All of the tigers have spots. All of us are here. None of us are dead yet. The three examples all sound correct when using the plural "are", rather than "is". Question Unfortunately, some of my coworkers disagree with me. They believe that the quote is correct when it uses the word "is". So my question is this: Is the motivational quote grammatically correct or should it say "all"? 
Answer: Semantically, none is neither singular nor plural. It's less than one and much less than many. So its subject agreement is entirely arbitrary. Plus, negatives are noted for their funny grammar. Positive quantifiers are either singular in verb agreement, like each and every, or plural, like all. None can be either, depending on context. Every boy is playing today. Every one of the boys is playing today. Each boy is playing today. Each of the boys is playing today. All of the boys are playing today. None of them are playing today. None of them is armed. If it quantifies a plural noun phrase, as in none of us, then it's equivalent to the negation of a universal quantifier in many cases. For instance, None of us are going to the party. is equivalent to All of us are not going to the party. which is ambiguous; that's one reason not to say it this way. instead of All of us are staying away from the party. which is unequivocally plural. As for the motivational slogan None of us is as smart as all of us (note, no full stop) It's intended to make you think, and it seems to have succeeded. If you like, you can take it as short for None of us is as smart as all of us together are. which is meant to contrast individual intelligence with groupthink, and therefore is unequivocally singular. tl;dr It'd be grammatical with are, but it'd also be a less efficient slogan.

Answer:
yes