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 "Changing the chronology" correctly answer the question "What is not mentioned by critics of Moore's movie?"?

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

Once upon a time there was a princess who lived in a high tower and she was not allowed to leave because of her mean mother. One day she chose to leave but her mother would not let her. The princess climbed out the window of the high tower and climbed down the south wall when her mother was sleeping. She wandered out a good ways. Finally she went into the forest where there are no electric poles but where there are some caves. There she met a young man who was running. His name was John. John asked the princess why such a beautiful woman like her was out in the middle of a forest. She said that she had been trapped for her whole life by an evil woman who said she was her mother. The man said that he would take the princess to a castle that was near. He also said that he thought that she may be the missing princess. As they go through the forest they run into many problems. They see that they are lost and have no way of finding where to go. After several days pass, the princess climbs up to the top of a tree in order to find out where they are. She sees that the castle where they want to go is not that far away and near a mountain. After thinking of the best way to get there, John and the princess go to the castle where they live for the rest of their lives.

Question: "How did the Princess spot the castle?"

OPTIONS:
- no
- yes

Answer: "By climbing on top of a tree"

Response: yes

If you build a campfire, you start with a large stack of sticks and logs. As the fire burns, the stack slowly shrinks. By the end of the evening, all that is left is a small pile of ashes. What happened to the matter that you started with? Was it destroyed by the flames? It may seem that way. What do you think happened? The truth is that the same amount of matter still exists. The wood changed not only to ashes, but also to carbon dioxide, water vapor, and other gases. The gases floated off into the air, leaving behind just the ashes. Although matter was changed, it was not created or destroyed. Because the same amount of matter still exists, we can say that matter is conserved. You may wonder how it can be conserved if something is now missing? Assume you had measured the mass of the wood before you burned it. Assume you had also trapped the gases released by the burning wood and measured their mass and the mass of the ashes. What would you find? The ashes and gases combined have the same mass as the wood you started with. This example illustrates the law of conservation of mass.

Question: "What happened to the matter changed to when burning a fire?"

Response: "It changed to ashes"
OPTIONS:
- no
- yes

A: yes

Problem: Tommy and Suzy (brother and sister) went to the playground one afternoon with their mom and dad, Jan and Dean. They were playing a game of tag and having the best time ever running after each other and laughing. They liked to play tag instead of building sandcastles or swinging. They liked tag because they liked to run. They like to play hopscotch or jump rope but that day they wanted to play tag. Other games aren't as fun. They met Tony and Ally (who are best friends) and invited them to play tag too. Tony and Ally like to play other games like hopscotch or jump rope but that day they joined the game of tag. Making new friends is important. Tony and Ally would rather make friends than play their favorite games.

Question: "If Tony and Ally prefer making friends to their favorite games, what games would they play otherwise?"

Answer: "Tennis"

OPTIONS:
- no
- yes
Answer: no

Greta ran to the corner with her older brother Tony. He had money for the ice cream truck in his pocket and she was very happy. The ice cream truck had been parked at the curb waiting for children for a very long time. The ice cream truck driver thought that no more children were coming to get ice cream so he started pulling away from the curb when they got to the corner. They yelled. They screamed, "Stop! Stop!" and jumped up and down on the side walk trying to get him to see them. The driver of the truck saw them, waved at them and smiled, pulled back to the curb and opened his truck up so that they could see everything that he had for sale. They were so excited. They saw some new treats. Tony wanted to try something new. He got an ice cream sundae with chocolate ice cream and nuts. He almost got a snow cone. Greta looked at everything that the ice cream truck had. She saw candy, ice cream cones, snow cones, and everything else. It all looked so good. But after looking at everything, she wanted to get an ice cream sandwich. She got the ice cream sandwich. She bit into it and smiled. It tasted so good. She felt so happy. Her brother, Tony, was happy too. He bit into his ice cream cone sundae and grinned. They walked home with their ice cream and told their mom about how close they came to not getting their ice cream at all. Their mom was happy that the truck had stopped for them. She said that they were very lucky to have gotten to the curb before the ice cream truck left.

Question: "Who had money for ice cream?"

Response: "Tony"
OPTIONS:
- no
- yes

A:
yes