Input: Magnets are able to place a force on certain materials. This force is called a magnetic force. The force a magnet exerts is a little different from the forces you may normally think about. You exert a force on a book when you lift it. You also exert a force on the pedals of your bicycle. In both those cases, those forces cause a change. The change you see in both these cases is called motion. Magnets, too, can produce change. They can produce motion just like you do. Unlike you, magnets do not have to touch something to exert a force. A magnetic force is exerted over a distance. Thats right, a magnet can push or pull certain items without ever touching them. Thats how the maglev train works. Do you know another type of force that does not require objects to touch? These forces are known as non-contact forces. Another type of non-contact force you may be familiar with is gravity. Gravity too can cause changes in motion. Gravity holds our moon in orbit without touching it.

Does the response "Human energy" correctly answer the question "The force you exert on your bike pedals that causes change is called what?"?
***
Output: no

Input: Static electricity is like a teeter-totter. What happens if a teeter-totter is balanced? Correct! It does not move. What about when its not balanced? Yes, it will now begin to move. Charges move when they are not balanced. Charges can build up by friction. Maybe you rub your feet on a wool mat or carpet. Rubber soled shoes readily gain charges. The wool carpet easily gives up charges. The two items become unbalanced. One item has a positive charge. The other has a negative charge. The difference in charge is called static electricity. Just like the teeter-totter, something is going to move. Positive charges build up on the mat. Negative charges build up on you.

Does the response "Maybe you rub your feet on a wool mat or carpet" correctly answer the question "What is an example of how charges build up by friction?"?
***
Output: yes

Input: American Airlines Flight 11: FAA Awareness. Although the Boston Center air traffic controller realized at an early stage that there was something wrong with American 11, he did not immediately interpret the plane's failure to respond as a sign that it had been hijacked. At 8:14, when the flight failed to heed his instruction to climb to 35,000 feet, the controller repeatedly tried to raise the flight. He reached out to the pilot on the emergency frequency. Though there was no response, he kept trying to contact the aircraft. At 8:21, American 11 turned off its transponder, immediately degrading the information available about the aircraft. The controller told his supervisor that he thought something was seriously wrong with the plane, although neither suspected a hijacking. The supervisor instructed the controller to follow standard procedures for handling a "no radio" aircraft. The controller checked to see if American Airlines could establish communication with American 11. He became even more concerned as its route changed, moving into another sector's airspace. Controllers immediately began to move aircraft out of its path, and asked other aircraft in the vicinity to look for American 11. At 8:24:38, the following transmission came from American 11: American 11: We have some planes. Just stay quiet, and you'll be okay. We are returning to the airport. The controller only heard something unintelligible; he did not hear the specific words "we have some planes." The next transmission came seconds later: American 11: Nobody move. Everything will be okay. If you try to make any moves, you'll endanger yourself and the airplane.

Does the response "11 minutes" correctly answer the question "How long between the time the FAA tried contacting the aircraft and the aircraft turning off its transponder (in minutes)?"?
***
Output: no

Input: The Principals Committee had its first meeting on al Qaeda on September 4. On the day of the meeting, Clarke sent Rice an impassioned personal note. He criticized U.S. counterterrorism efforts past and present. The "real question" before the principals, he wrote, was "are we serious about dealing with the al Qida threat? Is al Qida a big deal? Decision makers should imagine themselves on a future day when the CSG has not succeeded in stopping al Qida attacks and hundreds of Americans lay dead in several countries, including the US," Clarke wrote. "What would those decision makers wish that they had done earlier? That future day could happen at any time." Clarke then turned to the Cole." The fact that the USS Cole was attacked during the last Administration does not absolve us of responding for the attack," he wrote. "Many in al Qida and the Taliban may have drawn the wrong lesson from the Cole: that they can kill Americans without there being a US response, without there being a price."

Does the response "No one" correctly answer the question "Who said that the USS Cole was attacked during the Clinton administration?"?
***
Output:
no