Input: Tom's relaxation at the beach is interrupted by Jerry who inadvertently walks all over a sunbathing Tom going fishing . Jerry falls into Tom's mouth and while escaping , nearly causes Tom to swallow his beach towel . Jerry goes out to the pier and casts his favorite bait : cheese . Tom pulls on the line and makes Jerry reel him in . Jerry lets go of the line and Tom struggles to stay afloat , losing the string . Tom barely catches the pier , but Jerry swings the pole at him . After a few misses , Jerry whistles and then lands a direct hit . He runs to the end of the pier and pulls off the end board . Tom ca n't brake , and walks the plank until Jerry pulls it out , causing Tom to fall into the water and without emerging . A drowning Tom wakes up on the sea bed , where he finds himself still alive . He starts imitating the majestic sea creatures until he spots Jerry . The cat grabs him , but Jerry pulls away revealing that he has become a mer-mouse . Jerry swims in circles until Tom's head has done a 360 , and is then grabbed again . Jerry slaps Tom face with his tail , then spins his ears in to the shape of a wrench . The cat gives chase through shipwreck windows until Tom hangs back to swallow the mouse . Jerry breaks out through Tom's left eardrum . Jerry hides and disguises himself as a seahorse to join a father seahorse leading his babies , fooling the cat for only a while . Jerry then gets lassoed and captured , but Tom gets tricked into holding a fishing line and is caught .

Does the response "After Jerry falls in Tom's mouth and almost causes Tom to choke on his beach towel" correctly answer the question "When does Tom decide to get back at Jerry?"?
***
Output: yes

Input: He repeatedly calls on his followers to embrace martyrdom since "The walls of oppression and humiliation cannot be demolished except in a rain of bullets." For those yearning for a lost sense of order in an older, more tranquil world, he offers his "Caliphate" as an imagined alternative to today's uncertainty. For others, he offers simplistic conspiracies to explain their world. Bin Laden also relies heavily on the Egyptian writer Sayyid Qutb. A member of the Muslim Brotherhood executed in 1966 on charges of attempting to overthrow the government, Qutb mixed Islamic scholarship with a very superficial acquaintance with Western history and thought. Sent by the Egyptian government to study in the United States in the late 1940s, Qutb returned with an enormous loathing of Western society and history. He dismissed Western achievements as entirely material, arguing that Western society possesses "nothing that will satisfy its own conscience and justify its existence." Three basic themes emerge from Qutb's writings. First, he claimed that the world was beset with barbarism, licentiousness, and unbelief (a condition he called jahiliyya, the religious term for the period of ignorance prior to the revelations given to the Prophet Mohammed). Qutb argued that humans can choose only between Islam and jahiliyya. Second, he warned that more people, including Muslims, were attracted to jahiliyya and its material comforts than to his view of Islam; jahiliyya could therefore triumph over Islam. Third, no middle ground exists in what Qutb conceived as a struggle between God and Satan. All Muslims-as he defined them-therefore must take up arms in this fight. Any Muslim who rejects his ideas is just one more nonbeliever worthy of destruction. Bin Laden shares Qutb's stark view, permitting him and his followers to rationalize even unprovoked mass murder as righteous defense of an embattled faith. Many Americans have wondered, "Why do 'they' hate us?" Some also ask, "What can we do to stop these attacks?" Bin Laden and al Qaeda have given answers to both these questions.

Does the response "The Egyptian writer" correctly answer the question "Who offers simplistic conspiracies to explain their world"?
***
Output: no

Input: 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.

Does the response "Tag" correctly answer the question "What two activities do all four children play but didn't play on that day on the playground?"?
***
Output: yes

Input: Tocqueville asserted that the values that had triumphed in the North and were present in the South had begun to suffocate old-world ethics and social arrangements. Legislatures abolished primogeniture and entails, resulting in more widely distributed land holdings. This was a contrast to the general aristocratic pattern in which only the eldest child, usually a man, inherited the estate, which had the effect of keeping large estates intact from generation to generation. In America, in contrast, landed elites were less likely to pass on fortunes to a single child by the action of primogeniture, which meant that as time went by, large estates became broken up within a few generations which, in turn, made the children more equal overall. It was not always a negative development, according to Joshua Kaplan's interpretation of Tocqueville, since bonds of affection and shared experience between children often replaced the more formal relation between the eldest child and the siblings, characteristic of the previous aristocratic pattern. Overall, in the new democracies, hereditary fortunes became exceedingly difficult to secure and more people were forced to struggle for their own living. This rapidly democratizing society, as Tocqueville understood it, had a population devoted to "middling" values which wanted to amass, through hard work, vast fortunes. In Tocqueville's mind, this explained why America was so different from Europe. In Europe, he claimed, nobody cared about making money. The lower classes had no hope of gaining more than minimal wealth, while the upper classes found it crass, vulgar, and unbecoming of their sort to care about something as unseemly as money; many were virtually guaranteed wealth and took it for granted. At the same time in America, workers would see people fashioned in exquisite attire and merely proclaim that through hard work they too would soon possess the fortune necessary to enjoy such luxuries. Despite maintaining with Aristotle, Montesquieu, and others that the balance of property determined the balance of power, Tocqueville argued that, as America showed, equitable property holdings did not ensure the rule of the best men. In fact, it did quite the opposite. The widespread, relatively equitable property ownership which distinguished America and determined its mores and values also explained why the American masses held elites in such contempt.

Does the response "Europeans had no interest in it, while Americans desired it" correctly answer the question "How did Europeans' and Americans' attitudes toward amassing wealth differ?"?
***
Output:
yes