Given a paragraph from a Wikipedia article about some topic, and a question related to the topic, determine whether the question is answerable from the paragraph. If the question is answerable, answer "True", otherwise, answer "False".

Input: Consider Input: According to research published in 1999 by Alan Green and the Center for Public Integrity (CPI), loopholes in the ESA are commonly exploited in the exotic pet trade. Although the legislation prohibits interstate and foreign transactions for list species, no provisions are made for in-state commerce, allowing these animals to be sold to roadside zoos and private collectors. Additionally, the ESA allows listed species to be shipped across state lines as long as they are not sold. According to Green and the CPI, this allows dealers to "donate" listed species through supposed "breeding loans" to anyone, and in return they can legally receive a reciprocal monetary "donation" from the receiving party. Furthermore, an interview with an endangered species specialist at the US Fish and Wildlife Service revealed that the agency does not have sufficient staff to perform undercover investigations, which would catch these false "donations" and other mislabeled transactions. Question: Which of the following is not a federal agency: the FWS, the CITES or the NOAA?

Output: False

Input: Consider Input: The constraints of constructing a flight deck affect the role of a given carrier strongly, as they influence the weight, type, and configuration of the aircraft that may be launched. For example, assisted launch mechanisms are used primarily for heavy aircraft, especially those loaded with air-to-ground weapons. CATOBAR is most commonly used on USN supercarriers as it allows the deployment of heavy jets with full loadouts, especially on ground-attack missions. STOVL is used by other navies because it is cheaper to operate and still provides good deployment capability for fighter aircraft. Question: Which flight deck requires a bigger tax base?

Output: True

Input: Consider Input: In Miranda the court created safeguards against self-incriminating statements made after an arrest. The court held that "The prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way, unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination" Question: Who would have a right to have information and hold accountable the police?
Output: False