Input: An archaeological party explore some caverns underground . Dr. Campbell and Dr. Hughes are the two leaders of the archaeological expedition , and get separated . While Dr. Hughes finds an alien corpse with a fossilized diamond , Dr. Campbell finds hieroglyphics at the cost of the party except for Hughes and himself . Two years later , Campbell and his assistant Holly are digging up the bones of Yonggary , a gargantuan dinosaur 50 times the size of a tyrannosaurus rex . Out of nowhere , people slowly are being killed around the site . While Holly is working Dr. Hughes , who has been legally dead for 2 years , goes to Holly and tells her to stop the dig . Dr. Campbell comes into the tent and sends Dr. Hughes off . Holly quits the expedition when another '' Accident '' occurs . In the town bar , Dr. Hughes finds Holly and takes her back to her Hotel room to tell her why he thinks the bones of the Dinosaur , Which he calls Yonggary , are going to bring the end of the world . After explaining , Holly and Hughes go to the site to stop Campbell but it is too late and Aliens resurrect Yonggary . After Yonggary's first appearance , the Army comes in and takes Holly and Campbell to an army base when Yonggary is dispatched by the aliens again . The army sends choppers after Yonggary , but he destroys them . Yonggary is then sent to the city and does some damage , where some jets attack him . Then Yonggary is transported to a power plant where he is attacked by rocket pack soldiers . During the fight , Hughes and Holly find out that the diamond on Yonggary's forehead is the device giving the aliens control of Yonggary .
"What happens when Yonggary is dispatched by the aliens?" is "The army sends choppers after Yonggary"?

OPTIONS:
- no
- yes
Output: yes

Input: The rally took place on October 17, the shooting on February 29. Again, standard filmmaking techniques are interpreted as smooth distortion: "Moore works by depriving you of context and guiding your mind to fill the vacuum -- with completely false ideas. It is brilliantly, if unethically, done." As noted above, the "from my cold dead hands" part is simply Moore's way to introduce Heston. Did anyone but Moore's critics view it as anything else? He certainly does not "attribute it to a speech where it was not uttered" and, as noted above, doing so twice would make no sense whatsoever if Moore was the mastermind deceiver that his critics claim he is. Concerning the Georgetown Hoya interview where Heston was asked about Rolland, you write: "There is no indication that [Heston] recognized Kayla Rolland's case." This is naive to the extreme -- Heston would not be president of the NRA if he was not kept up to date on the most prominent cases of gun violence. Even if he did not respond to that part of the interview, he certainly knew about the case at that point. Regarding the NRA website excerpt about the case and the highlighting of the phrase "48 hours after Kayla Rolland is pronounced dead": This is one valid criticism, but far from the deliberate distortion you make it out to be; rather, it is an example for how the facts can sometimes be easy to miss with Moore's fast pace editing. The reason the sentence is highlighted is not to deceive the viewer into believing that Heston hurried to Flint to immediately hold a rally there (as will become quite obvious), but simply to highlight the first mention of the name "Kayla Rolland" in the text, which is in this paragraph.

Does the response "Hoya" correctly answer the question "Who was president of the NRA on February 29?"?

OPTIONS:
- no
- yes
***
Output: no

Problem: Recommendation: Congressional oversight for intelligence-and counterterrorism-is now dysfunctional. Congress should address this problem. We have considered various alternatives: A joint committee on the old model of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy is one. A single committee in each house of Congress, combining authorizing and appropriating authorities, is another. The new committee or committees should conduct continuing studies of the activities of the intelligence agencies and report problems relating to the development and use of intelligence to all members of the House and Senate. We have already recommended that the total level of funding for intelligence be made public, and that the national intelligence program be appropriated to the National Intelligence Director, not to the secretary of defense. We also recommend that the intelligence committee should have a subcommittee specifically dedicated to oversight, freed from the consuming responsibility of working on the budget. The resolution creating the new intelligence committee structure should grant subpoena authority to the committee or committees. The majority party's representation on this committee should never exceed the minority's representation by more than one. Four of the members appointed to this committee or committees should be a member who also serves on each of the following additional committees: Armed Services, Judiciary, Foreign Affairs, and the Defense Appropriations subcommittee. In this way the other major congressional interests can be brought together in the new committee's work. Members should serve indefinitely on the intelligence committees, without set terms, thereby letting them accumulate expertise. The committees should be smaller-perhaps seven or nine members in each house-so that each member feels a greater sense of responsibility, and accountability, for the quality of the committee's work. The leaders of the Department of Homeland Security now appear before 88 committees and subcommittees of Congress. One expert witness (not a member of the administration) told us that this is perhaps the single largest obstacle impeding the department's successful development. The one attempt to consolidate such committee authority, the House Select Committee on Homeland Security, may be eliminated. The Senate does not have even this. Congress needs to establish for the Department of Homeland Security the kind of clear authority and responsibility that exist to enable the Justice Department to deal with crime and the Defense Department to deal with threats to national security.

Question: "Who should address Congressional Oversight for intelligence-and counterterrorism?"

Answer: "Congress"

OPTIONS:
- no
- yes
Answer:
yes