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: Is there a specific reason for this? After all, it is "boys and girls", rather than "girls and boys". If the boy (male) comes first here, why doesn't it come first in "ladies and gentlemen"? 
Answer: It comes from "My Lords, Ladies and Gentlemen". Titled men come first (My Lords); then their spouses [My] Ladies; Ladies also include non-titled ladies; and finally, untitled men (Gentlemen). Debretts, Preamble Precedents The following list gives the form in which important guests should be included in a preamble in order of precedence: Your Royal Highness My Lord Mayor (My Lord Provost, etc) See (i) Mr Recorder (outside London) Mr Chairman of the ...... County Council (outside Greater London) My Lord Chancellor Prime Minister (or, more formally, Mr. Prime Minister). See (ii) Your Excellency (ies) (this refers to Ambassadors and High Commissioners) Your Grace(s). See (iii) My Lord(s). See (iv) Ladies and Gentlemen. See (v) If you want to know what the footnotes (i) through (v) say, so you will be absolutely correct at your next speech, click on the link.
[EX A]: no

[EX Q]: Question: I wrote this sentence: Why wouldn't it be valid? --and I realized that without the contraction it becomes: Why would it not be valid? As opposed to "why would not it be valid," as the contraction would imply. What's going on here? Why can I contract across the middle word this way? Or, to put it the other way, why can't I "de-contract" this without moving the not over by a word? 
Answer: Even though the standard term for these combinations of an auxiliary + -n't is "contractions", grammatically they act like single, indivisible words*; rather than like two words slurred together (though that was evidently their historical origin). This single word is a auxiliary, so it goes in the normal position for an auxiliary in an interrogative sentence: after the question-word and before the subject. Why wouldn't it be valid? Question word - auxiliary - subject - [rest of sentence] When you use "would not," on the other hand, you have two words: the auxiliary "would", and the distinct word "not" (a word that doesn't fit very well into the general part-of-speech categories). The auxiliary again goes into the normal position for an auxiliary. The word "not" has its own, different rules for where it goes in a sentence. Why would it not be valid? Question word - auxiliary - subject - [rest of sentence] *In fact, some linguists think the negative suffix in these words is best analyzed as an inflection in modern English, like the suffix "-s" used in third person.
[EX A]: yes

[EX Q]: Question: A knife has a handle and a blade. A spoon has a handle and a... Bowl? A fork has a handle and... Spikes? Prongs? I guess this can be extended to more esoteric cutlery such as sporks. 
Answer: Bowl: the hollow of a spoon (M-W) (visualdictionaryonline.com).
[EX A]:
no