In this task, you're given an article, a question which often contains a blank, four options (associated with "A", "B", "C", "D") and the answer to that question. Your task is to classify whether the given answer is correct or not by providing "Yes" or "No", based on the article.

[Q]: Article: The modern Olympic Games, founded in 1896, began as contests between individuals, rather than among nations, with the hope of promoting world peace through sportsmanship. In the beginning, the games were open only to amateurs. An amateur is a person whose involvement in an activity---from sports to science or the arts---is purely for pleasure. Amateurs, whatever their contributions to a field, expect to receive no form of compensation ; professionals, in contrast, perform their work in order to earn a living. From the perspective of many athletes, however, the Olympic playing field has been far from level. Restricting the Olympics to amateurs has precluded the participation of many who could not afford to be unpaid. Countries have always desired to send their best athletes, not their wealthiest ones, to the Olympic Games. A slender and imprecise line separates what we call "financial support" from "earning money." Do athletes "earn money" if they are reimbursed for travel expenses? What if they are paid for time lost at work or if they accept free clothing from a manufacturer or if they teach sports for a living? The runner Eric Liddell was the son of poor missionaries; in 1924 the British Olympic Committee financed his trip to the Olympics, where he won a gold and a bronze medal. College scholarships and support from the United States Olympic Committee made it possible for American track stars Jesse Owens and Wilma Rudolph and speed skater Dan Jansen to train and compete. When the Soviet Union and its allies joined the games in 1952, the definition of amateur became still muddier. Their athletes did not have to balance jobs and training because as citizens in communist regimes, their government financial support was not considered payment for jobs. In 1971 the International Olympic Committee(IOC) removed the word amateur from the rules, making it easier for athletes to find the support necessary to train and compete. In 1986 the IOC allowed professional athletes into the games. There are those who regret the disappearance of amateurism from the Olympic Games. For them the games lost something special when they became just another way for athletes to earn money. Others say that the designation of amateurism was always questionable; they argue that all competitors receive so much financial support as to make them paid professionals. Most agree, however, that the debate over what constitutes an "amateur" will continue for a long time.
Question: One might infer that _ .
Options: (A) developing Olympic-level skills in athletes is costly (B) professional athletes are mostly interested in financial rewards (C) amateurs does not expect to earn money at the sport that is played (D) amateurs have a better attitude than professionals do
Asnwer: C
[A]: No

[Q]: Article: Chinese President Hu Jintao, on his way to talks with President George W. Bush in prefix = st1 /Washington, on Tuesday met with Bill Gates. After the meeting with Gates, the world's richest man, at Microsoft's headquarters, Hu restated that China would move against software pirates all the time. At Microsoft Corp.'s campus, Hu said on Tuesday he admired what Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates had achieved. He also sought to reassure Gates that China is serious about protecting intellectual property rights . "Because you, Mr. Bill Gates, are a friend of China, I'm a friend of Microsoft," Hu said. "Also, I am dealing with the operating system produced by Microsoft every day," he added, to laughter. Gates responded: "Thank you, it's a fantastic relationship," and then said: "And if you ever need advice on how to use Windows, I'll be glad to help." "Chinais focused on and has already accomplished much in creating and enforcing laws to protect intellectual property." he said. "We take our promises very seriously." Hu also said he would certainly welcome a further increase in Microsoft's investment in China. "I'd also like to take this opportunity to assure you, Bill Gates, that we will certainly honor our words in protecting intellectual property rights," Hu said. In his brief visit to the Microsoft campus, Hu, accompanied by Gates and company CEO Steve Ballmer, saw some business technology demonstrations and toured Microsoft's Home of the Future, which features experimental technology that might someday be used in people's living spaces. Following the visit at Microsoft, about 100 guests, including former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and former Gov. Gary Locke, the first Chinese-American governor, were invited to Gates' $100 million lakeside house on Lake Washington for a dinner. China has recently begun requiring Chinese computer makers to load legal software on their machines. In Seattle's Chinatown, many stores hung Chinese and U.S.flags to welcome Hu, and many in the crowd outside the stately Fairmont Hotel on Monday night where Hu was staying were there to support the Chinese president.
Question: How many issues are mentioned in President Hu's visit to Microsoft?
Options: (A) One. (B) Two. (C) Three. (D) Four.
Asnwer: A
[A]: No

[Q]: Article: Spending as little as $5 a day on someone else could significantly boost happiness, the team at the University of British Columbia and Harvard Business School found on Thursday. Their experiments on more than 630 Americans showed they were measurably happier when they spent money on others--even if they thought spending the money on themselves would make them happier. "We wanted to test our theory that how people spend their money is at least as important as how much money they earn," said Elizabeth Dunn, a psychologist at the University of British Columbia. They asked their 600 volunteers first to rate their general happiness, report their annual (yearly) income and detail their monthly spending including bills, gifts for themselves, girls for others and donations to charity. "Regardless of how much income each person made, those who spent money on others reported greater happiness, while those who spent more on themselves did not," Dunn said in a statement. Dunn's team also surveyed 16 employees at a company in Boston before and after they received an annual profit-sharing bonus of between $3,000 and $8,000. "Employees who devoted more of their bonus to pro-social spending experienced greater happiness after receiving the bonus and the manner in which they spent that bonus was a more important predictor of their happiness than the size of the bonus itself" they wrote in their report, published in the journal Science. They gave their volunteers $5 or $20 and half got clear instructions on how to spend it. Those who spent the money on someone or something else reported feeling happier about it. "These findings suggest that very minor alterations (changes) in spending allocations (shares)--as little as $5--may be enough to produce real gains in happiness on a given day,"Dunn said.
Question: What is the general idea of the passage?
Options: (A) The more you earn, the greater happiness you will get. (B) Spending more money on yourself will make you happier. (C) Money can buy happiness, but only if you spend it on someone else. (D) You can spend only 5$ a day to get happiness.
Asnwer: B
[A]:
No