In this task, you will be presented with a context passage, a question about that paragraph, and a possible answer to that question. The task is to check the validity of the answer. Answer with "Yes" or "No".

[EX Q]: Alexander earned the epithet "The Great" due to his unparalleled success as a military commander. He never lost a battle, despite typically being outnumbered. This was due to use of terrain, phalanx and cavalry tactics, bold strategy, and the fierce loyalty of his troops. The Macedonian phalanx, armed with the sarissa, a spear 6 metres (20 ft) long, had been developed and perfected by Philip II through rigorous training, and Alexander used its speed and maneuverability to great effect against larger but more disparate Persian forces. Alexander also recognized the potential for disunity among his diverse army, which employed various languages and weapons. He overcame this by being personally involved in battle, in the manner of a Macedonian king. In his first battle in Asia, at Granicus, Alexander used only a small part of his forces, perhaps 13,000 infantry with 5,000 cavalry, against a much larger Persian force of 40,000. Alexander placed the phalanx at the center and cavalry and archers on the wings, so that his line matched the length of the Persian cavalry line, about 3 km (1.86 mi). By contrast, the Persian infantry was stationed behind its cavalry. This ensured that Alexander would not be outflanked, while his phalanx, armed with long pikes, had a considerable advantage over the Persian's scimitars and javelins. Macedonian losses were negligible compared to those of the Persians. At Issus in 333 BC, his first confrontation with Darius, he used the same deployment, and again the central phalanx pushed through. Alexander personally led the charge in the center, routing the opposing army. At the decisive encounter with Darius at Gaugamela, Darius equipped his chariots with scythes on the wheels to break up the phalanx and equipped his cavalry with pikes. Alexander arranged a double phalanx, with the center advancing at an angle, parting when the chariots bore down and then reforming. The advance was successful and broke Darius' center, causing the latter to flee once again. When faced with opponents who used unfamiliar fighting techniques, such as in Central Asia and India, Alexander adapted his forces to his opponents' style. Thus, in Bactria and Sogdiana, Alexander successfully used his javelin throwers and archers to prevent outflanking movements, while massing his cavalry at the center. <sep>How did Alexander use the phalanx in the battle of Granicus?<sep>Armed with the sarissa
[EX A]: No

[EX Q]: During the transition, Bush had chosen John Ashcroft, a former senator from Missouri, as his attorney general. On his arrival at the Justice Department, Ashcroft told us, he faced a number of problems spotlighting the need for reform at the FBI. In February, Clarke briefed Attorney General Ashcroft on his directorate's issues. He reported that at the time, the attorney general acknowledged a "steep learning curve," and asked about the progress of the Cole investigation. Neither Ashcroft nor his predecessors received the President's Daily Brief. His office did receive the daily intelligence report for senior officials that, during the spring and summer of 2001, was carrying much of the same threat information. The FBI was struggling to build up its institutional capabilities to do more against terrorism, relying on a strategy called MAXCAP 05 that had been unveiled in the summer of 2000. The FBI's assistant director for counterterrorism, Dale Watson, told us that he felt the new Justice Department leadership was not supportive of the strategy. Watson had the sense that the Justice Department wanted the FBI to get back to the investigative basics: guns, drugs, and civil rights. The new administration did seek an 8 percent increase in overall FBI funding in its initial budget proposal for fiscal year 2002, including the largest proposed percentage increase in the FBI's counterterrorism program since fiscal year 1997. The additional funds included the FBI's support of the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, Utah (a onetime increase), enhanced security at FBI facilities, and improvements to the FBI's WMD incident response capability. In May, the Justice Department began shaping plans for building a budget for fiscal year 2003, the process that would usually culminate in an administration proposal at the beginning of 2002. On May 9, the attorney general testified at a congressional hearing concerning federal efforts to combat terrorism. He said that "one of the nation's most fundamental responsibilities is to protect its citizens from terrorist attacks." The budget guidance issued the next day, however, highlighted gun crimes, narcotics trafficking, and civil rights as priorities. <sep>Who testified at a congressional hearing that, "one of the nation's most fundamental responsibilities is to protect its citizens from terrorist attacks"?<sep>Ashcroft predecessor
[EX A]: No

[EX Q]: Lash is associate dean at the University of Southern California Law School. Johnson is a justice on California's Second District Court of Appeal. Lash and Johnson are co-chairs of the California Commission on Access to Justice. The full report can be viewed at (www.calbar.org). In her year-long odyssey through the California justice system, Katherine, a 35-year-old single mother with three children, experienced failure at every turn. Leaving her abusive husband, she moved into the only apartment she could afford, and soon discovered a broken toilet and non- working oven, rats and roaches, and a fourthfloor landing with no railing. She began withholding rent pending repairs her landlord refused to make, but then her Medi-Cal benefits were cut off when she could not provide rent receipts. She lost health care for her children and herself, although she is a borderline diabetic in need of medication and her children were suffering from rat bites. Katherine tried to seek help through the courts. Representing herself at an administrative hearing, she lost her appeal to restore Medi-Cal benefits because she did not have proper documentation of the rent account. When she went to a courthouse to file a complaint against her landlord, she found the process so confusing that she gave up and went home. According to "The Path to Justice: A Five-Year Status Report on Access to Justice in California," prepared by the California Commission on Access to Justice, Katherine is just one of 4.6 million poor Californians whose basic civil legal needs -- often involving such critical needs as housing, health care, education, employment, safety and transportation -- are not being addressed. California has a critical dearth of legal services for the poor, and, as this report makes clear, it is imperative that the state join with the federal government and private funders to increase resources so that all Californians, regardless of income, have equal access to our justice system. Our justice system is predicated on the assumption that both parties will be represented by lawyers who act as gatekeepers and guides through a complex legal system that would otherwise be inaccessible to many of us. Unfortunately, the most vulnerable members of our society are the least able to afford legal services. California does have a strong network of legal aid organizations that try to help meet the needs of the poor, but there's just one legal aid lawyer available per 10,000 poor people. We may promise "justice for all," but for those who can't afford a lawyer, that promise is often a lie. In its new report, the Commission on Access to Justice notes some significant steps toward providing equal access to justice for all Californians. <sep>What positions do the co-chairs of the California Commission on Access to Justice hold?<sep>They are co owners of a law firm
[EX A]:
No