Input: The CIA's senior management saw problems with the armed Predator as well, problems that Clarke and even Black and Allen were inclined to minimize. One (which also applied to reconnaissance flights) was money. A Predator cost about $3 million. If the CIA flew Predators for its own reconnaissance or covert action purposes, it might be able to borrow them from the Air Force, but it was not clear that the Air Force would bear the cost if a vehicle went down. Deputy Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz took the position that the CIA should have to pay for it; the CIA disagreed. Second, Tenet in particular questioned whether he, as Director of Central Intelligence, should operate an armed Predator." This was new ground,"he told us. Tenet ticked off key questions: What is the chain of command? Who takes the shot? Are America's leaders comfortable with the CIA doing this, going outside of normal military command and control? Charlie Allen told us that when these questions were discussed at the CIA, he and the Agency's executive director, A. B." Buzzy" Krongard, had said that either one of them would be happy to pull the trigger, but Tenet was appalled, telling them that they had no authority to do it, nor did he. Third, the Hellfire warhead carried by the Predator needed work. It had been built to hit tanks, not people. It needed to be designed to explode in a different way, and even then had to be targeted with extreme precision. In the configuration planned by the Air Force through mid-2001, the Predator's missile would not be able to hit a moving vehicle. White House officials had seen the Predator video of the "man in white." On July 11, Hadley tried to hurry along preparation of the armed system. He directed McLaughlin, Wolfowitz, and Joint Chiefs Vice Chairman Richard Myers to deploy Predators capable of being armed no later than September 1.

Does the response "Concerned" correctly answer the question "Why was senior management so concerned about the cost of The Predator?"?
***
Output: no

Input: Living things need non-living matter as well as energy. What do you think matter is used for? One thing is to build bodies. They also need it to carry out the processes of life. Any non-living matter that living things need is called a nutrient. Carbon and nitrogen are examples of nutrients. Unlike energy, matter is recycled in ecosystems. You can see how in Figure 3.11. Decomposers release nutrients when they break down dead organisms. The nutrients are taken up by plants through their roots. The nutrients pass to primary consumers when they eat the plants. The nutrients pass to higher level consumers when they eat lower level consumers. When living things die, the cycle repeats.

Does the response "They use it to build bodies and carry out the processes of life" correctly answer the question "What do living things use non living matter for?"?
***
Output: yes

Input: Imagine you are standing in a farm field in central Illinois. The land is so flat you can see for miles and miles. On a clear day, you might see a grain silo 20 miles away. You might think to yourself, it sure is flat around here. If you drive one hundred miles to the south, the landscape changes. In southern Illinois, there are rolling hills. Why do you think this is? What could have caused these features? There are no big rivers that may have eroded and deposited this material. The ground is capable of supporting grass and trees, so wind erosion would not explain it. To answer the question, you need to go back 12,000 years. Around 12,000 years ago, a giant ice sheet covered much of the Midwest United States. Springfield, Illinois, was covered by over a mile of ice. Its hard to imagine a mile thick sheet of ice. The massive ice sheet, called a glacier, caused the features on the land you see today. Where did glaciers go? Where can you see them today? Glaciers are masses of flowing ice.

Does the response "The ground is capable of supporting grass and trees, so wind erosion would not explain it" correctly answer the question "What couldn't the erosion have been caused by?"?
***
Output: yes

Input: Earths magnetic field helps protect Earth and its organisms. It protects us from harmful particles given off by the sun. Most of the particles are attracted to the north and south magnetic poles. This is where Earths magnetic field is strongest. This is also where relatively few organisms live. Another benefit of Earths magnetic field is its use for navigation. People use compasses to detect Earths magnetic north pole. Knowing this helps them tell direction. Many animals have natural 'compasses' that work just as well. Birds like the garden warbler in Figure 1.36 use Earths magnetic field. They use it to guide their annual migrations. Recent research suggests that warblers and other migrating birds have structures in their eyes. These structures let them see Earths magnetic field as a visual pattern.

Does the response "Have structures in their eyes that let them see Earths magnetic field as a flying pattern" correctly answer the question "How do garden warblers use the earth's magnetic field to guide animal migration?"?
***
Output:
no