Input: When land is cleared, habitats are lost. It may be cleared for agriculture. It may also be used for building new homes or businesses. Within the past 100 years, the amount of land used for agriculture has almost doubled. Land used for grazing cattle has more than doubled. Many wetlands have also been lost to agriculture. The U.S. has lost almost all the natural tall-grass prairies. Thee areas of tall thick grass have virtually disappeared. These areas of land had thick fertile soil. Their grasses had very deep root systems. These deep and thick roots reduced the amount of soil erosion. They also were home to many plants and animals. Prairies were wonderful places. They were home to colorful flowers, prairie dogs, and herds of bison.

Does the response "Agriculture" correctly answer the question "Why may land be cleared?"?
***
Output: yes

Input: Soon after the conclusion of peace, important changes were made in legislation concerning industry and commerce, and the new freedom thus afforded produced a large number of limited liability companies. Plans were formed for building a great network of railways, partly for the purpose of developing the natural resources of the country, and partly for the purpose of increasing its power for defense and attack. The existence of serfdom was tackled boldly, taking advantage of a petition presented by the Polish landed proprietors of the Lithuanian provinces and, hoping that their relations with the serfs might be regulated in a more satisfactory way (meaning in a way more satisfactory for the proprietors), he authorized the formation of committees "for ameliorating the condition of the peasants," and laid down the principles on which the amelioration was to be effected. This step had been followed by one even more significant. Without consulting his ordinary advisers, Alexander ordered the Minister of the Interior to send a circular to the provincial governors of European Russia (serfdom was rare in other parts), containing a copy of the instructions forwarded to the Governor-General of Lithuania, praising the supposed generous, patriotic intentions of the Lithuanian landed proprietors, and suggesting that perhaps the landed proprietors of other provinces might express a similar desire. The hint was taken: in all provinces where serfdom existed, emancipation committees were formed. The emancipation was not merely a humanitarian question capable of being solved instantaneously by imperial ukase. It contained very complicated problems, deeply affecting the economic, social and political future of the nation. Alexander had to choose between the different measures recommended to him and decide if the serfs would become agricultural laborers dependent economically and administratively on the landlords or if the serfs would be transformed into a class of independent communal proprietors. The emperor gave his support to the latter project, and the Russian peasantry became one of the last groups of peasants in Europe to shake off serfdom. The architects of the emancipation manifesto were Alexander's brother Konstantin, Yakov Rostovtsev, and Nikolay Milyutin. On 3 March 1861, 6 years after his accession, the emancipation law was signed and published.

Does the response "The architects of the emancipation manifesto" correctly answer the question "Outside of posing the humanitarian question, what else did the emancipation serve?"?
***
Output: no

Input: 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.

Does the response "Making a new Department to oversee everything or increasing spending" correctly answer the question "What are two alternatives that Congress have considered?"?
***
Output: no

Input: Sometimes traits can vary from parent to offspring. These changes are due to mutations. Mutations are a random change. Mutations are natural. Some mutations are harmful. In this case, the organism may not live to reproduce. The trait will not be passed onto offspring. Others variations in traits have no effect on survival. Can some mutations be good for a living thing? Other mutations can have great benefits. Imagine being the first moth that can blend into its background. It would have a better chance of survival. A living thing that survives is likely to have offspring. If it does, it may pass the new trait on to its offspring. Thats good news for the offspring. The offspring may be more likely to survive. Mutations are one way living things adapt to new conditions.

Does the response "To animals" correctly answer the question "Who are traits passed from parents to?"?
***
Output:
no