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.

Article: Art robbery and art forgery are both major themes in crime movies and literature.In the 2012 comedy movie Gambit, British actor Colin Firth plays an art curator who cheats his abusive boss into buying a fake Monet. In reality, art crimes are no less interesting and exciting. According to The New York Times, over the past 15 years, Glafira Rosales fooled two local commercial art galleries into buying 63 false works of art for more than $30 million.She passed off fake paintings as works by 20th century modernist masters such as American artists Mark Rothko and Jackson Pollock.But in fact, these so called "newly discovered works" were all produced by a single man, a Chinese immigrant named Qian Peishen. The art world was shocked by Rosales' deception.But to the public, it was amusing and most satisfying to see wealthy people get tricked. So what decides the value of a piece of art? Is it beauty? Is it the artist's talent and craftsmanship? Or is it just because the artist is famous? We should take beauty out. If the buyers were buying paintings only for their beauty, they'll be content displaying good fakes on their walls. They wouldn't be so upset when a forgery is exposed. The art market claims that great artists are inimitable, and that this inimitability justifies the absurd price of their works. We can't deny that most famous artists are good at what they do, but forgers like Qian show that their works are imitable.Otherwise, the difference between the original and the copycats would be obvious and Rosales would not be able to fool anyone. According to an article in the Economist, expensive paintings are what economists call positional goods. They are valuable because other people can't have them. With other goods, a higher price reduces demand.But art turns down the laws of economics. "When the goods that is really being purchased is evidence that the buyer has paid a lot, price increases cause demand to boom," explained the article. That's why scarcity and authenticity are so important in the art market. Artists sometimes forget this.Demien Hirst, the British pop artist, is famous for his spot paintings. But they dropped in value when it became clear that they had been produced in quantities so vast that nobody knew how many were out there.The art market lost faith in these paintings because no one could be sure which of them were authentic and which were fake.
Question: Who is amused and satisfied to see the rich buy forged works of art?
Options: (A) The public. (B) Glafira Rosales. (C) Qian Peishen. (D) Mark Rothlo and Jackson Pollock.
Asnwer: B
No

Article: It's 5pm on a Friday and I'm standing in a coffee shop above Shibuya crossing - one of the most busiest place in Japan where more than a thousand of Tokyo's smartly dressed people gather at eight points, ready to cross - then rush straight for each other. It looks like they must bump into each other, but It's amazing that they all manage to reach the other side safely. But the real reason I'm here is that I want to see people crash. I want businessmen to knock into each other, their umbrellas flying off their arms, and uniformed schoolchildren hitting grannies. Why may I see this now, but wouldn't have had the chance even a year ago? It's very simple - smartphones. Smartphone use is booming in Japan. In 2012, only about a quarter of Japanese used them, most being perfectly happy with their everyday mobiles. But now more than half of all Japanese now own a smartphone and the number is rising fast. But with that rise has grown another phenomenon - the smartphone walk. Those people who're staring at a phone screen adopt this kind of pace- their head down, arms outreached, looking like zombies trying to find human prey . Surprisingly, an American named Michael Cucek who has lived here for more than 20 years told me smartphone walk probably wouldn't be a long-term problem. Japanese phone manner is in fact better than anywhere else in the world - hardly anyone speaks on their phones on trains, and teenagers wouldn't dare broadcast music out of one. If things got truly bad at Shibuya, the police would just start shouting at people to look up. But really, is the smartphone walk such an annoying problem? There's only one way to find out. So I leave the coffee shop, head down to the crossing and start typing an email, promising myself I won't look up until I get to the other side. When they start walking past me, it's my time to cross. As I step forward, the experience quickly becomes nervous - legs jump in and out of my vision without warning, while shopping bags fly towards my face before being pulled away at the last moment. I'm sure I'm going to get hit, but after a few seconds I relax. It's OK. Everyone's reacting for me. I expect to see two smartphone walkers just like me. But instead I find a young couple, very much in love and very much refusing to let each other's hands go just to give way to a fool on his smartphone. The girl gives me such a look of dislike that I quickly apologize and rush round them. That look was enough to ensure I'll never be smartphone walking again.
Question: Why does the author stand in a coffee shop above Shibuya crossing?
Options: (A) Because he is waiting for somebody. (B) Because he can have a good view from there. (C) Because he wants to see what would happen because of smartphones. (D) Because it's interesting to see businessmen's umbrellas flying off their arms
Asnwer: A
No

Article: Kodak's decision to apply for bankruptcy protection is a sad, though not unexpected, turning point for a leading American corporation that pioneered consumer photography and dominated the film market for decades, but finally failed to adapt to the digital revolution. Although many attribute Kodak's downfall to "complacency ," that explanation doesn't admit the efforts with which the company went to reinvent itself. Decades ago, Kodak invented the first digital camera in 1975 -- but in a fateful decision, the company chose to focus on its traditional film business. Large companies have a difficult time switching into new markets. For example, although Kodak predicted the rise of digital photography, its culture was too rooted in the successes of the past to fully welcome the future. In the past, their history was so important to them. Now their history has become a liability. Kodak's downfall over the last several decades was dramatic. The 1980s brought new competition from Japanese film company Fuji Photo, which weaken Kodak by offering lower prices. Kodak's decision not to pursue the role of official film for the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics was a major loss. The bid went instead to Fuji, which exploited its sponsorship to win a key role in the market.
Question: What do we learn about Kodak?
Options: (A) It went bankrupt all of a sudden. (B) It is approaching its downfall. (C) It is playing a dominant role in the film market. (D) It started the digital revolution in the film industry.
Asnwer: B
Yes