Problem: The factory is highly automated and designed to shift flexibly to produce many different kinds of chips to suit demand. "The diversity is the big difference with this plant," said Richard Doherty, president of Envisioneering, a research firm. "It gives IBM the capability to make so many different kinds of custom chips, and the world is going to custom chips." The 140,000-square-foot plant is a testament to advanced manufacturing technology. The 300-millimeter silicon wafers -- about the size of a standard pizza -- are shuttled around the facility in enclosed plastic pods, which ride on overhead tracks. They drop down from wires automatically into machines, sheathed in stainless steel and glass, for each stage of processing and fabrication. Throughout the 500 processing steps, which typically last 20 days, the wafers are not touched by human hands. The circuits etched into the chips are less than one thousandth the width of a human hair. Human operators are there to monitor the systems, catch errors and fine-tune the production process for maximum efficiency. Because each of the hundreds of processing machines is self-enclosed, and essentially airtight, the uniforms operators wear are less constricting than in the previous generation of chip plants, which looked like space suits. The operators at the East Fishkill factory wear light nylon uniforms, light blue shoe coverings and translucent hair nets made of paper. They look more like workers in a bakery. Yes, said Richard Brilla, director of the new facility, "but the donuts are a lot more costly here." Each wafer, holding hundreds of chips, is worth $6,000 to $10,000 apiece, depending on what insulation, circuitry and materials are used.

Question: "Why do operators at the East Fishkill factory look like workers in a bakery?"

Answer: "Since they wear light uniforms, shoe coverings and hair nets"

OPTIONS:
- no
- yes
Answer: yes

Question:
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. After reading the above, is "Because landed elites were less likely to pass on fortunes to a single child through primogeniture" the correct answer to the question "Why were the children of American elites more equal to non-elite children than were the children of European elites?"? OPTIONS:
- no
- yes

Answer:
yes

Input: On Thursday Fort Waelhem succumbed after a magnificent resistance. The garrison held it until it was a mere heap of ruins, and, indeed, they had the greatest difficulty in making their way out. I think that there is very little doubt that the Germans were using against these forts their largest guns, the great 42-centimetre howitzers. It is known that two of these were brought northwards past Brussels after the fall of Maubeuge, and a fragment which was given to us was almost conclusive. It was brought to us one morning as an offering by a grateful patient, and it came from the neighbourhood of Fort Waelhem. It was a mass of polished steel two feet long, a foot wide, and three inches thick, and it weighed about fifty pounds. It was very irregular in shape, with edges sharp as razors, without a particle of rust upon it. It had been picked up where it fell still hot, and it was by far the finest fragment of shell I have ever seen. Alas we had to leave it behind, and it lies buried in a back-garden beside our hospital. Some day it will be dug up, and will be exhibited as conclusive evidence that the Germans did use their big guns in shelling the town.
"Was the gun fragment large or small?" is "Small"?

OPTIONS:
- no
- yes
Output: no

Input: Powell contended that it was not inconsistent to want to foster cooperation even with an organization like the Indonesian military, which has a history of human rights abuses. "If you get young officers, expose them to a military organization that is within a democratic political institution, such as the United States, then that rubs off on them," he said. In Malaysia, Powell met with Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, who has led the country since 1981. The Malaysian foreign minister, Syed Hamid Albar, later told local reporters that Powell had proposed that American and Malaysian officials review the idea of forming a regional training center in Malaysia to coordinate antiterrorism activities. His brief stop in Malaysia also highlighted the moral ambiguities of the effort to prevent terrorism and its emphasis on cooperation with governments that the United States has often criticized. The United States once distanced itself from Mahathir for strong-arm tactics with political rivals, and human rights groups criticize him for arresting and jailing scores of suspected militants, including some who may be linked to al-Qaida, without trial. Powell said his discussions with Mahathir "touched on the case" of his former deputy, Anwar Ibrahim, who is serving a 15-year sentence on charges of sodomy and abuse of power after trials that Powell said the United States had "always felt" were flawed. The assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs, James Kelly, met on Tuesday morning with Anwar's wife, Wan Azizah Wan Ismail, for what she later told Malaysian reporters was a discussion about both the detention of her husband and six supporters, and the campaign against terrorism.
"Who does Powell meet with to discuss an antiterrorism campaign?" is "Mahathir"?

OPTIONS:
- no
- yes
Output:
yes