Input: Convicted murderer Seth Baxter awakens chained to a table beneath a pendulum blade . A videotape informs him that crushing his hands between the presses will release him ; he does so , but the blade still swings down and violently cuts him in half , while someone watches through a hole in the wall . The scene cuts to Agent Peter Strahm , who kills Jeff Denlon in self-defense and is sealed in the sickroom . He finds a hidden passage with a tape recorder that warns him to stay in the sickroom , but ignores it . He is attacked by a pig-masked figure in the passage and awakens with his head sealed in a box slowly filling with water , Which he survives by performing a tracheotomy using a pen . Outside the plant , Detective Mark Hoffman delivers Corbett Denlon to the police and claims they are the only survivors , and is shocked when Strahm is brought out alive as well . Jill Tuck is met by John Kramer's attorney , who is administering his will . She is left a box and a videotape , in Which John stresses the importance of the box's contents . She opens it with a key hung around her neck and then leaves without disclosing its contents . In a memorial service held for David Tapp , Steven Sing , Allison Kerry , Eric Matthews , and Daniel Rigg , the five officers killed in action , Hoffman is promoted to detective lieutenant . He is informed of the death of Agent Lindsey Perez while taking Strahm's phone and goes to the hospital to meet Strahm , who says that Hoffman's name was Perez's last words .

Does the response "Mark Hoffman," correctly answer the question "Who delivered Denlon to the police and was then promoted?"?
***
Output: yes

Input: The Principals Committee had its first meeting on al Qaeda on September 4. On the day of the meeting, Clarke sent Rice an impassioned personal note. He criticized U.S. counterterrorism efforts past and present. The "real question" before the principals, he wrote, was "are we serious about dealing with the al Qida threat? Is al Qida a big deal? Decision makers should imagine themselves on a future day when the CSG has not succeeded in stopping al Qida attacks and hundreds of Americans lay dead in several countries, including the US," Clarke wrote. "What would those decision makers wish that they had done earlier? That future day could happen at any time." Clarke then turned to the Cole." The fact that the USS Cole was attacked during the last Administration does not absolve us of responding for the attack," he wrote. "Many in al Qida and the Taliban may have drawn the wrong lesson from the Cole: that they can kill Americans without there being a US response, without there being a price."

Does the response "Decision makers should imagine themselves on a future day" correctly answer the question "What two things did Clarke urge decision makers to do because the future could happen at any time?"?
***
Output: yes

Input: You write: "Having created the desired impression, Moore follows with his Heston interview." No, he doesn't. You accuse Moore so often of changing the chronology, yet you have no problems changing it yourself. The Heston interview is at the very end of the movie. After the Flint rally comes a brief TV interview with Heston, where he is asked about Kayla Rolland (again, clear evidence that the local media in Flint raised questions about the NRA's presence), then an inteview with country prosecutor Arthur Busch, entirely ignored by critics of the film, who also mentions Heston's presence as notable, and refers to the immediate reactions of "people from all over America", gun owners/groups who, according to him, reacted aggressively to warnings of having guns accessible to children, much like spanking advocates react aggressively when anti-spankers point to a case of a child being killed or severely injured by a beating. These people do not feel the need to express sympathy, or to think about ways to avoid such incidents, but they feel the need to assert their "rights" and to look for quick, simple answers -- as Busch states, gun owners wanted to "hang [the child] from the highest tree". This is all not mentioned by critics of Moore's movie, who claim to be objective. Perhaps the best example of the paranoia surrounding Moore's film is your sub-essay "Is the end of the Heston interview itself faked?" Moore answers a simple question -- how could the scene have been filmed -- with a simple answer: two cameras. From this, you construct an obscure conspiracy of "re-enactment": "For all we can tell, Moore could have shouted 'Hey!' to make Heston turn around and then remained silent as Heston left." Even if your "re-enactment" theory is true (and I see no evidence that you have actually tried to ask the people involved in the filmmaking for their opinion), this itself is not unethical, and you have no evidence whatsoever that Moore has done anything unethical here, just like you have no evidence that Moore has unethically removed parts of the interview. You use standard filmmaking technique as a basis to construct bizarre conspiracies which sound plausible to the gullible reader, without ever providing any evidence for the implicit or explicit claims of fraud and distortion.

Does the response "Changed chronology" correctly answer the question "Name three criticisms of Moore's movie."?
***
Output: yes

Input: Fact: I wasn't dead. After I realized this, I left my quarters. The lightscreen provided had informed me when and where official meals were taking place, but I hadn't bothered to acknowledge the invitations. It hadn't seemed relevant, somehow, given that I was still reeling over the explosion, the deaths of my crewmates, and the rescue. I've heard there are a number of stages of grief and shock; I guess I was working my way through them. Food was delivered to my quarters. Initially, I couldn't figure out whyI hadn't requested any be sent. Then I realized, someone must have noticed I hadn't left, and was nice enough to send food my way. The accompanying bottle of wine was a nice touch. I must have consumed it, too, because later on, the plates and the bottle were both empty. I spent a lot of time lying on my back on the bed, staring up at the little etched swirls in the ceiling, or slumped in the old-fashioned armchair, staring out the windows at the stars. I did a lot of staring and not moving. Man, was it good to be done with that stage. It was time to find out what hell looked like.

Does the response "Cheese" correctly answer the question "What exactly did the person consume?"?
***
Output:
no