While this process moved along, diplomacy continued its rounds. Direct pressure on the Taliban had proved unsuccessful. As one NSC staff note put it, "Under the Taliban, Afghanistan is not so much a state sponsor of terrorism as it is a state sponsored by terrorists." In early 2000, the United States began a high-level effort to persuade Pakistan to use its influence over the Taliban. In January 2000, Assistant Secretary of State Karl Inderfurth and the State Department's counterterrorism coordinator, Michael Sheehan, met with General Musharraf in Islamabad, dangling before him the possibility of a presidential visit in March as a reward for Pakistani cooperation. Such a visit was coveted by Musharraf, partly as a sign of his government's legitimacy. He told the two envoys that he would meet with Mullah Omar and press him on Bin Laden. They left, however, reporting to Washington that Pakistan was unlikely in fact to do anything," given what it sees as the benefits of Taliban control of Afghanistan." President Clinton was scheduled to travel to India. The State Department felt that he should not visit India without also visiting Pakistan. The Secret Service and the CIA, however, warned in the strongest terms that visiting Pakistan would risk the President's life. Counterterrorism officials also argued that Pakistan had not done enough to merit a presidential visit. But President Clinton insisted on including Pakistan in the itinerary for his trip to South Asia. His one-day stopover on March 25, 2000, was the first time a U.S. president had been there since 1969. At his meeting with Musharraf and others, President Clinton concentrated on tensions between Pakistan and India and the dangers of nuclear proliferation, but also discussed Bin Laden. President Clinton told us that when he pulled Musharraf aside for a brief, one-on-one meeting, he pleaded with the general for help regarding Bin Laden." I offered him the moon when I went to see him, in terms of better relations with the United States, if he'd help us get Bin Laden and deal with another issue or two." The U.S. effort continued.

Question: "What were two reasons the Secret Service, the CIA and counterterrorism officials advised President Clinton not to visit Pakistan?"

Response: "Risked his life"
OPTIONS:
- no
- yes

A: yes

Problem: Enter the Shoguns: Japan's austere, ruthless, but statesmanlike new ruler, Yoritomo Minamoto, set up his government in Kamakura (just south of modern Tokyo), well away from the "softening" influence of court life that had been the undoing of his predecessor, Kiyomori. First of the national rulers to take the title of sei-i tai-shogun ("barbarian-subduing great general"), Minamoto expanded and consolidated his power by confiscating lands from some of the defeated Taira and redistributing them to his samurai vassals. Minamoto died in 1199, and the feudal structure passed intact to the tutelage of his widow's family, the Hojo, who were content to play regent to a figurehead shogun, in much the same way as the Fujiwara had done with the emperor. The fiction of Japanese imperial power had become infinitely extendable. The emperor at Kyotostill seconded by a Fujiwara regent at courtlegitimized a Minamoto who was himself a military dictator controlled by a Hojo regent. In a country where form and substance were inextricably interrelated, two things counted in politics: symbolic authority and real power. Neither could exist without the other. A thwarted Mongol invasion in 1274 weakened the Kamakura regime. The fighting brought none of the usual spoils of war that provincial warlords and samurai had come to expect as payment. And the treasury was empty after earthquake, famine, and plague had crippled the economy. Buddhist monasteries were using their private armies to support imperial ambitions to bring power back to Kyoto. Worst of all, the Kamakura warriors, resenting the way the Kyoto court referred to them as "Eastern barbarians," sought refinement in a ruinous taste for luxury: extravagant feasts, rich costumes, and opulent homes. Kamakura was falling apart.

Question: "How did the economy collapse?"

Answer: "Earthquake"

OPTIONS:
- no
- yes
Answer: yes

Question:
The Legal Services Corp. (LSC), a quasi-governmental agency that provides legal aid for the poor, would receive $329 million in fiscal 2004 under President Bush's proposal - the same amount requested in 2003 and approved for 2002 and 2001. If approved, the hold-the-line request for LSC means its budget would erode with inflation for another year, but it could be worse for the organization: Many conservatives fought for years to do away with the LSC altogether, saying legal services attorneys were spending too much time fighting for liberal causes or pursuing politically charged cases against the government instead of representing the needy. Opposition to the organization has cooled since 1996, when Congress approved restrictions (PL 104-134) on the sorts of cases federally funded legal aid attorneys can take. (1996 Almanac, p. 5-36) Republicans cut the organization's budget deeply in 1996, but its funding has recovered slowly. Last month, in the omnibus spending bill for fiscal 2003, the Senate added a onetime increase of $19 million, which, if approved in the final version, would bring the LSC budget to $348 million. The money would go to help states, such as Michigan and Ohio, that lost money when the organization redistributed its funding based on census counts made in 2000 of poor households. If the extra money survives a conference with the House and makes it to the president's desk, LSC supporters may try to include it in the organization's fiscal 2004 funding. The federal government began funding some programs to provide legal assistance to the poor in the late 1960s; the Legal Services Corporation was created in 1974 (PL 93-355). LSC gives nearly all its money to state and local agencies, which provide civil legal assistance to those whose income is less than 125 percent of the federal poverty level - $11,075 a year for an individual and $22,625 for a family of four. Funding for legal services goes to defend needy clients in domestic violence cases, custody cases and other such matters, according to LSC. Since 1996, lawyers who receive money from Legal Services have been prohibited from such activities as lobbying legislatures, filing class-action suits, participating in political demonstrations or strikes, pursuing abortion-related litigation, representing illegal aliens or prisoners, or defending public housing tenants evicted because they were charged with selling drugs After reading the above, is "Defending public housing tenants evicted because they were charged with selling drugs" the correct answer to the question "What types of cases were prohibited by PL 104-134?"? OPTIONS:
- no
- yes

Answer:
yes

Input: In the period before World War II, the New York Times published a vignette in their "The Talk of the Town" feature saying that Einstein was so well known in America that he would be stopped on the street by people wanting him to explain "that theory". He finally figured out a way to handle the incessant inquiries. He told his inquirers "Pardon me, sorry! Always I am mistaken for Professor Einstein." Einstein has been the subject of or inspiration for many novels, films, plays, and works of music. He is a favorite model for depictions of mad scientists and absent-minded professors; his expressive face and distinctive hairstyle have been widely copied and exaggerated. Time magazine's Frederic Golden wrote that Einstein was "a cartoonist's dream come true".

Does the response "Novels, films, plays, and works of music" correctly answer the question "Einstein's depiction of a mad scientist and an absent-minded professor has led to the making of what?"?

OPTIONS:
- no
- yes
***
Output:
yes