Input: The properties of matter depend on the types of atoms that matter is made of. Matter can exist in two forms. It can be a pure substance. This means it is not mixed with anything. It can also be a combination of different substances. This means it can be a mix of different types of atoms. You may recall that atoms differ based on the numbers of protons they contain. Some atoms contain only one proton such as Hydrogen. Other atoms contain many protons. There are many types of atoms. For example, Helium has two protons. An Oxygen atom has eight. Water is composed of a two types of atoms. Water is made of two Hydrogen atoms and one Oxygen atoms. There are only so many types of atoms. These atoms can be mixed into an almost limitless amount of substances. So what do we call a substance that has only a single type of atom?
"What atoms is water composed of?" is "2 hydrogen and 1 oxygen atom"?

OPTIONS:
- no
- yes
Output: yes
Input: Energy often changes from one form to another. For example, the drummer transfers motion to sound energy. When the moving drumstick strikes the drum head, the drum starts to vibrate. The motion of the vibrating drum head creates the sound you hear. Any form of energy can change into any other form. Frequently, one form of energy changes into two or more different forms. Have you ever sat in front of a campfire? What are two things you notice? The fire creates light. It is also warm by the fire, meaning it creates heat. The energy of the fire comes from the stored energy in the wood. The wood contains chemical energy. As it burns, the chemical energy is changed into light and heat. Not all chemical energy changes produce light and heat. Our cars use gasoline as a fuel. Gasoline contains chemical energy. When our cars burn gasoline in their engines, it is converted into motion and heat. When energy changes forms, energy is conserved.
"When you sit in front of a campfire, where does the energy of the fire come from?" is "It comes from the chemical energy it inherently possesses"?

OPTIONS:
- no
- yes
Output: no
Input: After the 1998 embassy bombings, the U.S. government tried to develop a clearer picture of Bin Laden's finances. A U.S. interagency group traveled to Saudi Arabia twice, in 1999 and 2000, to get information from the Saudis about their understanding of those finances. The group eventually concluded that the oft-repeated assertion that Bin Laden was funding al Qaeda from his personal fortune was in fact not true. The officials developed a new theory: al Qaeda was getting its money elsewhere, and the United States needed to focus on other sources of funding, such as charities, wealthy donors, and financial facilitators. Ultimately, although the intelligence community devoted more resources to the issue and produced somewhat more intelligence, it remained difficult to distinguish al Qaeda's financial transactions among the vast sums moving in the international financial system. The CIA was not able to find or disrupt al Qaeda's money flows. The NSC staff thought that one possible solution to these weaknesses in the intelligence community was to create an all-source terrorist-financing intelligence analysis center. Clarke pushed for the funding of such a center at Treasury, but neither Treasury nor the CIA was willing to commit the resources. Within the United States, various FBI field offices gathered intelligence on organizations suspected of raising funds for al Qaeda or other terrorist groups. By 9/11, FBI agents understood that there were extremist organizations operating within the United States supporting a global jihadist movement and with substantial connections to al Qaeda. The FBI operated a web of informants, conducted electronic surveillance, and had opened significant investigations in a number of field offices, including New York, Chicago, Detroit, San Diego, and Minneapolis. On a national level, however, the FBI never used the information to gain a systematic or strategic understanding of the nature and extent of al Qaeda fundraising. Treasury regulators, as well as U.S. financial institutions, were generally focused on finding and deterring or disrupting the vast flows of U.S. currency generated by drug trafficking and high-level international fraud. Large-scale scandals, such as the use of the Bank of New York by Russian money launderers to move millions of dollars out of Russia, captured the attention of the Department of the Treasury and of Congress. Before 9/11, Treasury did not consider terrorist financing important enough to mention in its national strategy for money laundering.
"What kept the U.S. government from being able to stop Bin Laden's flow of money?" is "Policy"?

OPTIONS:
- no
- yes
Output:
yes