After the August missile strikes, diplomatic options to press the Taliban seemed no more promising than military options. The United States had issued a formal warning to the Taliban, and also to Sudan, that they would be held directly responsible for any attacks on Americans, wherever they occurred, carried out by the Bin Laden network as long as they continued to provide sanctuary to it. For a brief moment, it had seemed as if the August strikes might have shocked the Taliban into thinking of giving up Bin Laden. On August 22, the reclusive Mullah Omar told a working-level State Department official that the strikes were counterproductive but added that he would be open to a dialogue with the United States on Bin Laden's presence in Afghanistan. Meeting in Islamabad with William Milam, the U.S. ambassador to Pakistan, Taliban delegates said it was against their culture to expel someone seeking sanctuary but asked what would happen to Bin Laden should he be sent to Saudi Arabia. Yet in September 1998, when the Saudi emissary, Prince Turki, asked Mullah Omar whether he would keep his earlier promise to expel Bin Laden, the Taliban leader said no. Both sides shouted at each other, with Mullah Omar denouncing the Saudi government. Riyadh then suspended its diplomatic relations with the Taliban regime. (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and the United Arab Emirates were the only countries that recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.) Crown Prince Abdullah told President Clinton and Vice President Gore about this when he visited Washington in late September. His account confirmed reports that the U.S. government had received independently. Other efforts with the Saudi government centered on improving intelligence sharing and permitting U.S. agents to interrogate prisoners in Saudi custody. The history of such cooperation in 1997 and 1998 had been strained. Several officials told us, in particular, that the United States could not get direct access to an important al Qaeda financial official, Madani al Tayyib, who had been detained by the Saudi government in 1997.67Though U.S. officials repeatedly raised the issue, the Saudis provided limited information. In his September 1998 meeting with Crown Prince Abdullah, Vice President Gore, while thanking the Saudi government for their responsiveness, renewed the request for direct U.S. access to Tayyib. The United States never obtained this access. An NSC staff-led working group on terrorist finances asked the CIA in November 1998 to push again for access to Tayyib and to see "if it is possible to elaborate further on the ties between Usama bin Ladin and prominent individuals in Saudi Arabia, including especially the Bin Laden family." One result was two NSC-led interagency trips to Persian Gulf states in 1999 and 2000. During these trips the NSC, Treasury, and intelligence representatives spoke with Saudi officials, and later interviewed members of the Bin Laden family, about Usama's inheritance.

Question: "What action briefly seemed like it might convince the Taliban to give up Bin Laden?"

Response: "The us would hold them responsible"
OPTIONS:
- no
- yes

A: no

Problem: From a human point of view, a habitat is where you live. It might be your city, town, or neighborhood. Your habitat can be altered. Most people move a few times in their lives. But a plant cannot move. An animal may not be suited to live in another area. A habitat is the natural home or environment of an organism. Humans often destroy the habitats of other organisms. The loss of habitat can cause the extinction of species. Extinction is when a species disappears forever. Once a species is extinct, it can never be brought back. Humans cause habitat destruction in many ways. There are two common ways this happens. Land may be cleared. Another way is when an animal or plant is brought to an area where it does not belong.

Question: "What are the two common ways that habitat destruction can occur?"

Answer: "Land being cleared & when an animal or plant is brought into an area it does not belong."

OPTIONS:
- no
- yes
Answer: yes

Question:
Military Notification and Response. Boston Center did not follow the protocol in seeking military assistance through the prescribed chain of command. In addition to notifications within the FAA, Boston Center took the initiative, at 8:34, to contact the military through the FAA's Cape Cod facility. The center also tried to contact a former alert site in Atlantic City, unaware it had been phased out. At 8:37:52, Boston Center reached NEADS. This was the first notification received by the military-at any level-that American 11 had been hijacked: FAA: Hi. Boston Center TMU [Traffic Management Unit], we have a problem here. We have a hijacked aircraft headed towards New York, and we need you guys to, we need someone to scramble some F-16s or something up there, help us out. NEADS: Is this real-world or exercise? FAA: No, this is not an exercise, not a test. NEADS ordered to battle stations the two F-15 alert aircraft at Otis Air Force Base in Falmouth, Massachusetts, 153 miles away from New York City. The air defense of America began with this call. At NEADS, the report of the hijacking was relayed immediately to Battle Commander Colonel Robert Marr. After ordering the Otis fighters to battle stations, Colonel Marr phoned Major General Larry Arnold, commanding general of the First Air Force and NORAD's Continental Region. Marr sought authorization to scramble the Otis fighters. General Arnold later recalled instructing Marr to "go ahead and scramble them, and we'll get authorities later." General Arnold then called NORAD headquarters to report. F-15 fighters were scrambled at 8:46 from Otis Air Force Base. After reading the above, is "Otis Air Force Base" the correct answer to the question "What is the name of the airbase the fighter jets where scrambled form?"? OPTIONS:
- no
- yes

Answer:
yes

Input: Federal health authorities Monday added 58 types of cancer to the list of covered illnesses for people who were exposed to toxins at the site of the World Trade Center in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks. The addition finalizes a recommendation from Dr. John Howard, administrator of the World Trade Center Health Program. Howard proposed in June that the program accept the recommendations of its Science/Technical Advisory Committee and add some cancers to the coverage list -- 14 categories in all. Firefighters responding to 9/11 at increased cancer risk The advisory committee review called for expanded "coverage for certain types of cancer resulting from exposure to toxins released at Ground Zero." "The publication of this final rule marks an important step in the effort to provide needed treatment and care to 9/11 responders and survivors through the WTC Health Program," Howard said in a statement Monday. The rule is expected to be published Wednesday in the Federal Register, and will take effect 30 days after its publication, Howard said. 9/11 detective dies after battle with lung cancer First responders, volunteers, survivors of the attacks and residents near the site who meet specific qualifications will be eligible for coverage, according to the World Trade Center Health Program. According to the proposed rule, an estimated 950 to 2,150 people would take advantage of the additional coverage. The estimated cost for the total cancer treatment ranges between $14.5 million and $33 million, the proposal said.

Does the response "World Trade Center Health Program" correctly answer the question "What review called for expanded coverage of certain types of cancer after Howard made his proposal?"?

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