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".
--------
Question: The rally took place on October 17, the shooting on February 29. Again, standard filmmaking techniques are interpreted as smooth distortion: "Moore works by depriving you of context and guiding your mind to fill the vacuum -- with completely false ideas. It is brilliantly, if unethically, done." As noted above, the "from my cold dead hands" part is simply Moore's way to introduce Heston. Did anyone but Moore's critics view it as anything else? He certainly does not "attribute it to a speech where it was not uttered" and, as noted above, doing so twice would make no sense whatsoever if Moore was the mastermind deceiver that his critics claim he is. Concerning the Georgetown Hoya interview where Heston was asked about Rolland, you write: "There is no indication that [Heston] recognized Kayla Rolland's case." This is naive to the extreme -- Heston would not be president of the NRA if he was not kept up to date on the most prominent cases of gun violence. Even if he did not respond to that part of the interview, he certainly knew about the case at that point. Regarding the NRA website excerpt about the case and the highlighting of the phrase "48 hours after Kayla Rolland is pronounced dead": This is one valid criticism, but far from the deliberate distortion you make it out to be; rather, it is an example for how the facts can sometimes be easy to miss with Moore's fast pace editing. The reason the sentence is highlighted is not to deceive the viewer into believing that Heston hurried to Flint to immediately hold a rally there (as will become quite obvious), but simply to highlight the first mention of the name "Kayla Rolland" in the text, which is in this paragraph. <sep>When was Kayla Rolland shot?<sep>February 17

Answer: No

Question: Have you ever looked closely at a globe? That continents look like a giant jig-saw puzzle. North America looks like it could fit next to Europe. The edge of South America matches Africa. Scientists noticed these same features. It caused them to start asking questions. They wanted to know if these continents were was connected? If so, how can something so large move so far? What could possibly have enough force to move such a giant slab of rock? Is there other evidence that can provide clues to the past positions of continents? How can answering these questions help us? A scientist named Alfred Wegener had these same questions. Wegener look at rocks on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean. He noticed they were the same type and age. He thought that the rocks must have formed side by side. He proposed that the rocks then drifted apart. One part went with North America. The other part stayed with Europe. <sep>What features did the scientists notice<sep>That the continents look like a giant jig-saw puzzle

Answer: Yes

Question: Heat supplies the energy that causes motion. The deeper you go into toward the Earths core, the hotter it gets. At the core it is really hot. All that heat tries to rise toward the surface. In the Mantle, the rock is partially melted and is able to move. As it is heated, the material in the mantle moves toward the surface. As the mantle material rises, it cools. When it reaches the Earths crust, it is mostly stopped. A little of the material can break through the surface, but not all. Instead, it begins to move horizontally. The mantle material moves horizontally away from a mid-ocean ridge crest. Toward the surface, the mantle material starts to cool. As it cools it sinks back down into the mantle. These areas are where deep sea trench occur. The material sinks back down to the core. The system operates like a giant conveyor belt. The motion due to heating and cooling is called convection. <sep>Does rock move more at the surface of the earth or at its core?<sep>At its core

Answer:
Yes