Input: Taliban and American aid. After the September 11 attacks, it was necessary for conservatives to somehow explain away the fact that the US government gave 245 million dollars to the new evildoers du jour. Never mind the fact that authors such as Robert Scheer warned of aiding the Taliban as early as in May 2001. Never mind that they did so not out of some humanitarian motivation, but because of the Taliban's violent enforcement of the ban on opium poppies. Never mind that in a regime that is controlled by warlords, it does not matter who is authorized to distribute the aid -- the ruling regional warlords will seize control of it and use it to their own advantage. Never mind that this very argument has been used by hawks in opposition to sending humanitarian aid to Iraq's Saddam Hussein. Never mind that the Taliban continued selling opium in spite of the deal. Never mind that this is all documented on Michael Moore's website about the film. Gun homicides. Statistics are Moore's weakest point, and it is surprising that his critics don't dwell on them longer. That's because they know all too well that Moore is correct: The United States have a far greater homicide rate (both gun- and non-gun) than most other first world countries. His main mistake is that he does not use population corrected data, his second mistake is that he does not cite his sources (and, as you correctly point out, he probably uses different reporting methods for the different countries). A good comparison of international homicide rates can be found on the relatively neutral guncite.com website.
"For what topic does Michael Moore fail to cite his sources?" is "The United States Homicide Rate (Both Gun and Non-Gun)"?
Output: yes
Input: I've been thinking about the mindwipe, now two days away. Who said that those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it? I fear that may be true for me. Add this to the reasons I write now: to remember something, perhaps even to learn -- Emil Malaquez arrived after sundown, carrying a small package wrapped in what looked like real paper. His evening dress was formal, expensive, and slightly stained, as that of all forgetful artists should be. He was a jovial man with an easy laugh, and even uglier than Tasha had suggested. I liked him immediately. "Senor Malaquez?" "Please. Call me Emil. You must be Bernardo. Tasha's told me much about you." "All of it outrageous praise?" "All of it." "Ah, she is wonderfully perceptive." He raised an eyebrow, then guffawed. "Has she said as much about me?" "She thinks you are a genius. Do come in." "Thank you."
"Whose evening dress was formal?" is "Senor Malaquez's"?
Output: yes
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.
"Who are mentioned as being at the playground that day?" is "Tommy"?
Output:
yes