Input: Modern criticism of Pope focuses on the man, his circumstances and motivations, prompted by theoretical perspectives such as Marxism, feminism and other forms of post-structuralism. Brean Hammond focuses on Pope's singular achievement in making an independent living solely from his writing. Laura Brown (1985) adopts a Marxist approach and accuses Pope of being an apologist for the oppressive upper classes. Hammond (1986) has studied Pope's work from the perspectives of cultural materialism and new historicism. Along Hammond's lines, Raymond Williams explains art as a set of practices influenced by broad cultural factors rather than simply the vague ideas of genius alone. Hayden Carruth, wrote that it was "Pope's rationalism and pandeism with which he wrote the greatest mock-epic in English literature." In Politics and Poetics of Transgression (1985) Peter Stallybrass and Allon White charge that Pope drew upon the low culture which he despised in order to produce his own "high art". They assert Pope was implicated in the very material he was attempting to exclude, not dissimilar to observations made in Pope's time. Colin Nicholson reads the poetry in terms of the Financial Revolution, showing how Pope responded to the corruption of the traditional 'landed interest' by the newly dominant 'moneyed interest'. Feminists have also criticised Pope's works. Ellen Pollak's The Poetics of Sexual Myth (1985) argues that Pope followed an anti-feminist tradition, that regarded women as inferior to men both intellectually and physically. Carolyn Williams contends that a crisis in the male role during the 18th century in Britain impacted Pope and his writing.

Does the response "Intellectually and physically" correctly answer the question "Pope is being criticized/supported for what type of work?"?

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

Life for the partners of Cates, Katalinic & Lund holds little of the glamour one might expect from a career in law. Instead of lunches at Lutce, they caucus at the Palace Diner in Queens. Wooing clients means passing out fliers on street corners, not securing box seats at Madison Square Garden. To make ends meet, one partner stacks pipe and cleans the yard at a plumbing warehouse. Another handles urine samples in a hospital lab. A sign of failure, of a feeble economy, perhaps? Hardly. They are heeding the call of a growing pool of law schools, which are for the first time pointing graduates in a new direction and teaching them how to get there. Forget the lure of large firms, the security of a government post. Here is how to grapple "in the service of justice," as many of the schools put it, instead. Convinced that corporate largess and government programs barely dent the nation's legal needs, the law schools are urging graduates to buck tradition, pass up big salaries and ignore mushrooming student debt to join tiny neighborhood practices or simply start their own, all with an eye toward charging no more than their clients can afford. This is not pro bono legal work; it is "low bono," a term the schools coined to define the atypical kind of law career they are training students for. While its practitioners do charge for their services, they are also dead set on turning no one away - or at least as few as possible. "When you go into this kind of social justice law, it's really brutal and you're almost guaranteed to struggle for a couple of years before there's a light at the end of the tunnel," said Fred Rooney, director of the Community Legal Resource Network at City University of New York School of Law, from which the lawyers of the newly formed Cates, Katalinic & Lund graduated last May. "But if our graduates don't do it, the millions of people who cannot access justice in this country will continue to soar." The movement, primly called the consortium, started four years ago by CUNY, Northeastern University, the University of Maryland and St. Mary's Law School in Texas. (St. Mary's later dropped out.) Since then, it has drawn seven additional law schools to its ranks: the University of Michigan, Rutgers and Syracuse Law Schools, New York Law School, University of New Mexico School of Law, Thomas M. Cooley Law School and Touro Law School. It has elicited at least initial interest from 19 more.

Question: "Do the lawyers practicing "low bono" work struggle and take side jobs?"

OPTIONS:
- no
- yes

Answer: "Law is their side job"

Response: no

The opening shot of the movie shows Kunti praying for Lord Krishna's protection for the Pandavas . Lord Krishna consoles Kunti and promises to ever protect the Pandavas and guide them through troubles and problems that may occur in life . The sons of Pandu and Dhritarashtra progeny break into an argument . When Duryodhana insults the Pandavas as '' dependents '' , Bheema counters by saying that , the Kauravas are the progeny of a widow . Duryodhana asks Veda Vyasa for an explanation . He is then told that , since his mother , Gandhari had an astrological defect , she is first married of to a goat and then married to his father . Duryodhana gains animosity towards the kingdom of Gandhara where the king , the father of his mother Gandhari , rules . He attacks Gandhara and lays waste of the whole kingdom . He them imprisons the royal family in his prison . He gives them only one rice grain per prisoner . The king of Gandhara then stops everyone from grabbing the little food that is provided . He says that instead of everyone dying , they could keep at least one of their princes alive . He chooses Sakuni to be alive . Sakuni takes an oath that he will do everything he can to destroy the entire Kaurava clan . He makes magic dice from his father's spinal cord . The magic dice show exactly the number that he would want . Duryodhana takes pity on the lone prisoner , Sakuni after the rest of the Gandhara royal family dies in prison out of starvation . Sakuni joins the evil of coterie of Duryodhana , Karna and Dushyasana .

Question: "Why does Duryodhana attack Gandhara?"

Response: "His mother has an astrological defect"
OPTIONS:
- no
- yes

A: yes

Grim disappeared upstairs himself, and returned about ten minutes later in the uniform of a Shereefian officer--that is to say, of Emir Feisul's Syrian army. Nothing could be smarter, not anything better calculated to disguise a man. Disguise, as any actor or detective can tell you, is not so much a matter of make- up as suggestion. It is little mannerisms--unstudied habits that identify. The suggestion that you are some one else is the thing to strive for, not the concealment of who you really are. Grim's skin had been sun-tanned in the Arab campaign under Lawrence against the Turks. The Shereefian helmet is a compromise between the East and West, having a strip of cloth hanging down behind it as far as the shoulders and covering the ears on either side, to take the place of the Arab head-dress. The khaki uniform had just enough of Oriental touch about it to distinguish it from that of a British officer. No man inexperienced in disguise would dream of choosing it; for the simple reason that it would not seem to him disguise enough. Yet Grim now looked so exactly like somebody else that it was hard to believe he was the same man who had been in the room ten minutes before. His mimicry of the Syrian military walk--blended of pride and desire not to seem proud--was perfect.

Question: "Why did Grim disappear upstairs?"

Response: "To obtain a disguise"
OPTIONS:
- no
- yes

A:
no