Given the Question and Answer pair, detect whether the answer is acceptable or not. Denote acceptable answer as "yes", otherwise denote as "no". An acceptable answer is consistent with the context in question, detailed, long, and uses general knowledge of English. Answers that are not definite and suggest a variety of options are not acceptable answers.

Ex Input:
Question: Should e.g. and i.e. have periods, e.g. "e.g.", or no periods, eg "eg"? Should they be italicized, e.g. "i.e." or not, eg "i.e"?
Answer: I.e. and e.g. are written without periods in AMA style (10th edition).

Ex Output:
no

Ex Input:
Question: I am watching a UK TV programme called "The Apprentice". The candidates have to sell guided tours. Some candidates are terrible at giving these tours. They fluff their lines, or they haven't researched, or they make up "facts". Watching their ineptitude cause a feeling of discomfort. What is the best word for this discomfort? The German word schadenfreude means roughly "the pleasure derived from the misfortunes of others". The word I want would be almost an antonym of schadenfreude - "the discomfort derived from the mosfortunes of others". Except not the misfortunes but the uselessness of others.
Answer: As far as I can imagine, there isn't such a word in the English language, but there are a few words that could be made to fit with that idea. Empathize means sympathizing with another person's unfortunate circumstances. Though empathizing with a person doesn't exactly have to do with that person's ineptitude, you can elaborate on the idea easily enough to make it clear. Empathize means to put yourself in another person's shoes or to feel as another person feels. Pity is another word that is commonly understood but also commonly forgotten. Unfortunately the word pity in modern times has taken on a sort of high and mighty tone that discourages its use, but it means almost exactly what you're trying to express: pity for the person for the embarrassment he or she has brought upon him- or herself. I'm quite positive there are others, but I have a migraine. :) Hope these help!.

Ex Output:
no

Ex Input:
Question: The Law of Demeter ("talk only to your friends") is a good place to start, but think about it this way: you can play with your toys, with toys that you make, and with toys that someone gives you. You don't ever, ever play with your toy's toys. Source: The Thoughtworks Anthology What could the last sentence mean? Could a toy have a toy? Assuming a toy means "A toy is an item that is used in play", a toy can never have a toy, so one cannot play with a toy's toys (it's physically not possible). The context is object oriented programming.
Answer: As other people have said, it's a badly worded analogy, around the fact that you shouldn't directly interact with items you don't directly own (or have been given permission to interact with). A better analogy would be: you have a sandwich, and your partner has a sandwich. You can eat your sandwich if you want, but you shouldn't eat your partner's sandwich without their permission. Otherwise, there may be trouble when they get and try to eat it...

Ex Output:
no