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".

[Q]: Adrienne Saunders is happily married to her art dealer husband , Jack . They have a daughter named Mary . Adrienne hears from a friend that she thought she saw Jack in town when he claimed to be on an out of town business trip . Adrienne confronts him , but he denies being in town , and their lives continue . Soon after a museum curator is mysteriously murdered , and a relic that Jack bought for the museum is revealed to be a fake . Jack is placed under suspicion , and then Adrienne receives word from the police that Jack perished in a car accident . In trying to wrap up Jack 's affairs , Adrienne begins to suspect that her husband had switched identities with a high school classmate , Frank Sullivan . When she sees a high school yearbook picture of her husband attributed to Sullivan , she is convinced . She tracks down a relative of Saunders , who confirms that Frank and Jack were inseparable in high school . After Jack died , the relative never saw Frank again . She explained that Frank 's father was an alcoholic and that his mother worked as a toll booth operator . She directs Adrienne to Frank 's mother , who lives in a rundown apartment in Brooklyn . Frank 's mother bitterly receives the news that she has a granddaughter , telling Adrienne that Frank was always selfish and that he never looked in on her . A stalker lurks at Adrienne 's loft . He comes in to Adrienne 's bed while she is asleep and caresses her . He watches Mary , who is spooked by the man in her room at night . <sep>What happened to Jack?<sep>Jack is in car accident
[A]: Yes

[Q]: Recommendation: Congressional oversight for intelligence-and counterterrorism-is now dysfunctional. Congress should address this problem. We have considered various alternatives: A joint committee on the old model of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy is one. A single committee in each house of Congress, combining authorizing and appropriating authorities, is another. The new committee or committees should conduct continuing studies of the activities of the intelligence agencies and report problems relating to the development and use of intelligence to all members of the House and Senate. We have already recommended that the total level of funding for intelligence be made public, and that the national intelligence program be appropriated to the National Intelligence Director, not to the secretary of defense. We also recommend that the intelligence committee should have a subcommittee specifically dedicated to oversight, freed from the consuming responsibility of working on the budget. The resolution creating the new intelligence committee structure should grant subpoena authority to the committee or committees. The majority party's representation on this committee should never exceed the minority's representation by more than one. Four of the members appointed to this committee or committees should be a member who also serves on each of the following additional committees: Armed Services, Judiciary, Foreign Affairs, and the Defense Appropriations subcommittee. In this way the other major congressional interests can be brought together in the new committee's work. Members should serve indefinitely on the intelligence committees, without set terms, thereby letting them accumulate expertise. The committees should be smaller-perhaps seven or nine members in each house-so that each member feels a greater sense of responsibility, and accountability, for the quality of the committee's work. The leaders of the Department of Homeland Security now appear before 88 committees and subcommittees of Congress. One expert witness (not a member of the administration) told us that this is perhaps the single largest obstacle impeding the department's successful development. The one attempt to consolidate such committee authority, the House Select Committee on Homeland Security, may be eliminated. The Senate does not have even this. Congress needs to establish for the Department of Homeland Security the kind of clear authority and responsibility that exist to enable the Justice Department to deal with crime and the Defense Department to deal with threats to national security. <sep>What would be the results of reducing intelligence committee sizes?<sep>The cost to run the committees would be less
[A]: No

[Q]: These contradictory orders, and even letters of recall, reached Law on his march, but though he sent back M. Sinfray with letters to M. Bugros and Coja Wajid--which the latter afterwards made over to Clive--he continued his march to Patna, where he arrived on the 3rd of June, and was well received by Raja Ramnarain, and where he was within four or five days' march or sail from Sooty, the mouth of the Murshidabad or Cossimbazar river, and therefore in a position to join the Nawab whenever it might be necessary. In the mean time fate had avenged Law on one of his lesser enemies. This was that Ranjit Rai, who had insulted him during his interview with the Seths. The latter had pursued their old policy of inciting the English to make extravagant demands which they at the same time urged the Nawab to refuse. To justify one such demand, the English produced a letter in the handwriting of Ranjit Rai, purporting to be written at the dictation of the Seths under instructions from the Nawab. The latter denied the instructions, and the Seths promptly asserted that the whole letter was a forgery of their agent's. <sep>Who wrote the letter?<sep>The Seths
[A]:
No