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: For years, there has been a bias against science among clinical psychologists . In a two-year analysis to be published in November inPerspectives on Psychological Science, psychologists led by Timothy B. Baker of the University of Wisconsin charge that many clinical psychologists fail to "provide the treatments for which there is the strongest evidence of effectiveness" and "give more weight to their personal experiences than to science." As a result, patients have no guarantee that their "treatment will be informed by ... science." Walter Mischel of Columbia University is even crueler in his judgment. "The disconnect between what clinical psychologists do and what science has discovered is an extreme embarrassment," he told me, and "there is a widening gap between clinical practice and science." The "widening" reflects the great progress that psychological research has made in identifying the most effective treatments. Thanks to strict clinical trials, we now know that teaching patients to think about their thoughts in new, healthier ways and to act on those new ways of thinking are effective against depression, panic disorder and other problems, with multiple trials showing that these treatments -- the tools of psychology -- bring more lasting benefits than drugs. You wouldn't know this if you sought help from a typical clinical psychologist. Although many treatments are effective, relatively few psychologists learn or practice them. Why in the world not? For one thing, says Baker, clinical psychologists are "very doubtful about the role of science" and "lack solid science training". Also, one third of patients get better no matter what treatment (if any) they have, "and psychologists remember these successes, believing, wrongly, that they are the result of the treatment." When faced with evidence that treatments they offer are not supported by science, clinical psychologists argue that they know better than some study what works. A 2008 study of 591 psychologists in private practice found that they rely more on their own and colleagues' experience than on science when deciding how to treat a patient. If they keep on this path as insurance companies demand evidence-based medicine, warns Mischel, psychology will "discredit itself."
Question: Many clinical psychologists fail to provide the most effective treatments because _ .
Options: (A) they are unfamiliar with their patients (B) they believe in science and evidence (C) they depend on their colleagues' help (D) they rely on their personal experiences
Asnwer: C
[A]: No

[Q]: Article: Should doctors ever lie to benefit their patient---to speed recovery or to cover the coming of death? In medicine as in law, government, and other lines of work, the requirements of honesty often seem dwarfed by greater needs: the need to protect from brutal news or to uphold a promise of secrecy; to advance the public interest. What should doctors say, for example, to a 46-year-old man coming in for a routine physical check up just before going on vacation with his family who, though he feels in perfect health, is found to have a form of cancer that will cause him to die within six months. Is it best to tell him the truth? If he asks, should the doctor reject that he is ill, or minimize the gravity of the illness? Should they at least hide the truth until after the family vacation? Doctors face such choices often. At times, they see important reasons to lie for the patient's own sake; in their eyes, such lies differ sharply from self-serving ones. Studies show that most doctors sincerely believe that the seriously ill patients do not want to know the truth about their condition, and that informing them risks destroying their hope, so that they may recover more slowly, or deteriorate faster, perhaps even commit suicide. But other studies show that, contrary to the belief of many physicians; a great majority of patients do want to be told the truth, even about serious illness, and feel cheated when they learn that they have been misled. We are also learning that truthful information, humanly conveyed, helps patients cope this illness: help them tolerate pain better, need less medicine, and even recover faster after operation. There is urgent need to debate this issue openly. Not only in medicine, but in other professions as well, practitioners may find themselves repeatedly in difficulty where serious consequences seem avoidable only through deception . Yet the public has every reason to know professional deception, for such practices are peculiarly likely to become deeply rooted, to spread, and to trust. Neither in medicine, nor in law, government, or the social sciences can there be comfort in the old saying, "What you don't know can't hurt you."
Question: What is the passage mainly about?
Options: (A) Whether patients should be told the truth of their illness. (B) Whether patients really want to know the truth of their condition. (C) Whether different studies should be carried on. (D) Whether doctors are honest with their patients.
Asnwer: D
[A]: No

[Q]: Article: On one of her trips to New York several years ago, Eudora Welty decided to take a couple of New York friends out to dinner. They settled in at a comfortable East Side cafe and within minutes, another customer was approaching their table. "Hey, aren't you from Mississippi?" the elegant, white-haired writer remembered being asked by the stranger. "I'm from Mississippi too." Without a second thought, the woman joined the Welty party. When her dinner partner showed up, she also pulled up a chair. "They began telling me all the news of Mississippi," Welty said. "I didn't know what my New York friends were thinking." Taxis on a rainy New York night are rarer than sunshine. By the time the group got up to leave, it was pouring outside. Welty's new friends immediately sent a waiter to find a cab. Heading back downtown toward her hotel, her big-city friends were amazed at the turn of events that had changed their Big Apple dinner into a Mississippi. "My friends said: 'Now we believe your stories,'" Welty added. "And I said: 'Now you know. These are the people that make me write _ .'" Sitting on a sofa in her room, Welty, a slim figure in a simple gray dress, looked pleased with this explanation. "I don't make them up," she said of the characters in her fiction these last 50 or so years. "I don't have to." Beauticians, bartenders, piano players and people with purple hats, Welty's people come from afternoons spent visiting with old friends, from walks through the streets of her native Jackson, Miss., from conversations overheard on a bus. It annoys Welty that, at 78, her left ear has now given out. Sometimes, sitting on a bus or a train, she hears only a fragment of a particularly interesting story.
Question: What happened when Welty was with her friends at the cafe?
Options: (A) Two strangers joined her. (B) Her childhood friends came in. (C) A heavy rain ruined the dinner. (D) Some people held a party there.
Asnwer: A
[A]:
Yes