Question:
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. After reading the above, is "Prarie dogs, bison, cranes" the correct answer to the question "What lived on prairies?"? OPTIONS:
- no
- yes

Answer:
no

Input: We waited for half an hour, watching the smoke curling over the house, and then, judging that the Indians had made off for fear of being ambushed, we crossed the clearing. It took but a glance to read the story. The women had been washing by the little brook before the cabin, with the children playing about them, when the Indians had come up and with a single volley killed them all except the child we had heard crying. They had swooped down upon their victims, torn the scalps from their heads, looted the house, and set fire to it. We dragged out the body of the woman which had been thrown within, in the hope that a spark of life might yet remain, but she was quite dead. Beneath the warrior Spiltdorph had shot we found the child. It was a boy of some six or seven years, and so covered with blood that it seemed it must be dead. But we stripped it and washed it in the brook, and found no wounds upon it except in the head, where it had been struck with a hatchet before its scalp had been stripped off. The cold water brought it back to life and it began to cry again, whereat Spiltdorph took off his coat and wrapped it tenderly about it.
"Who set fire to and looted the house." is "Aliens"?

OPTIONS:
- no
- yes
Output: no

Input: Roma captain Francesco Totti set a new Serie A scoring record on Saturday as his side demolished Cesena 5-1. Two early goals from the 35-year-old striker saw him reach a total of 211 goals for Roma, which means he has scored more goals for one club than any other player in Serie A history. His tally sees him surpass the previous record of 210 set by the prolific Swedish striker Gunnar Nordahl who played for AC Milan in the 1950s. "It's what I've always wanted, to wear this shirt and beat one record after another," said Totti, AFP reported. "I've overtaken Nordahl and I'm proud of that. Now I'm aiming for Altafini," he added, AFP reported. Brazilian Jose Altafini is the joint third highest scorer (along with Giuseppe Meazza) in Serie A history with 216 goals. Totti's early brace and a goal from Fabio Borini put Roma 3-0 up with only eight minutes played. Juan and Miralem Pjanic added further goals in the second half after CM Eder had pulled a goal back for Cesena on the hour mark. The win lifts Roma to sixth -- although Napoli will overtake them again if they win at Siena on Sunday -- and boosts their chances of qualifying for European football next season. Cesena, however, remain mired in trouble hovering just above the foot of the table in 18th place with 15 points.

Does the response "Altafini" correctly answer the question "After Nordahl, whose record does Francesco want to beat?"?

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

While this process moved along, diplomacy continued its rounds. Direct pressure on the Taliban had proved unsuccessful. As one NSC staff note put it, "Under the Taliban, Afghanistan is not so much a state sponsor of terrorism as it is a state sponsored by terrorists." In early 2000, the United States began a high-level effort to persuade Pakistan to use its influence over the Taliban. In January 2000, Assistant Secretary of State Karl Inderfurth and the State Department's counterterrorism coordinator, Michael Sheehan, met with General Musharraf in Islamabad, dangling before him the possibility of a presidential visit in March as a reward for Pakistani cooperation. Such a visit was coveted by Musharraf, partly as a sign of his government's legitimacy. He told the two envoys that he would meet with Mullah Omar and press him on Bin Laden. They left, however, reporting to Washington that Pakistan was unlikely in fact to do anything," given what it sees as the benefits of Taliban control of Afghanistan." President Clinton was scheduled to travel to India. The State Department felt that he should not visit India without also visiting Pakistan. The Secret Service and the CIA, however, warned in the strongest terms that visiting Pakistan would risk the President's life. Counterterrorism officials also argued that Pakistan had not done enough to merit a presidential visit. But President Clinton insisted on including Pakistan in the itinerary for his trip to South Asia. His one-day stopover on March 25, 2000, was the first time a U.S. president had been there since 1969. At his meeting with Musharraf and others, President Clinton concentrated on tensions between Pakistan and India and the dangers of nuclear proliferation, but also discussed Bin Laden. President Clinton told us that when he pulled Musharraf aside for a brief, one-on-one meeting, he pleaded with the general for help regarding Bin Laden." I offered him the moon when I went to see him, in terms of better relations with the United States, if he'd help us get Bin Laden and deal with another issue or two." The U.S. effort continued.

Question: "Did the CIA and the State Department agree on their advice to President Clinton in terms of his intention to visit both India and Pakistan?"

OPTIONS:
- no
- yes

Answer: "Yes there was no disagreement between the two"

Response: no

Question:
Fact: I wasn't dead. After I realized this, I left my quarters. The lightscreen provided had informed me when and where official meals were taking place, but I hadn't bothered to acknowledge the invitations. It hadn't seemed relevant, somehow, given that I was still reeling over the explosion, the deaths of my crewmates, and the rescue. I've heard there are a number of stages of grief and shock; I guess I was working my way through them. Food was delivered to my quarters. Initially, I couldn't figure out whyI hadn't requested any be sent. Then I realized, someone must have noticed I hadn't left, and was nice enough to send food my way. The accompanying bottle of wine was a nice touch. I must have consumed it, too, because later on, the plates and the bottle were both empty. I spent a lot of time lying on my back on the bed, staring up at the little etched swirls in the ceiling, or slumped in the old-fashioned armchair, staring out the windows at the stars. I did a lot of staring and not moving. Man, was it good to be done with that stage. It was time to find out what hell looked like. After reading the above, is "He did not request the food" the correct answer to the question "Did he requested for food and what are the other thing he got with food?"? OPTIONS:
- no
- yes

Answer:
yes