Question:
Reuters Holdings PLC said Michael Reupke resigned as general manager to pursue unspecified interests, a move the news organization termed an "amicable separation." Mr. Reupke, 52 years old and a 27-year Reuters veteran, had been the information-services company's general manager for only six months. His appointment to that post, which has senior administrative, staff and policy responsibilities, followed a several-year tenure as Reuters's editor in chief. No successor was named, and Mr. Reupke's duties will be split among three other senior Reuters executives, the company said. In a telephone interview, Mr. Reupke said his departure was for "personal reasons," which he declined to specify. "There is no business reason for my departure," nor any disagreement over policy, he added. He also rejected reports that his departure stemmed from disappointment the general manager's post hadn't also led to a board directorship at the London-based news organization. Mr. Reupke was one of three executives on Reuters's eight-person executive committee who didn't also serve on the company's board of directors. "If I were choosing the people of tomorrow, I would have chosen the people who are now on the board," he said. A Reuters spokesman said the departure reflects "no change in strategy or profits." Mark Shepperd, an analyst at UBS Philips & Drew in London, said, "I suspect (the departure) will be fairly irrelevant for the company. I would be very surprised if his departure signals any change in strategy or change in profit expectations." On London's Stock Exchange, Reuters shares rose five pence to 913 pence ($14.43). In the U.S. over-the-counter market, American depositary shares for Reuters, each representing three shares in the London market, closed unchanged at $43.875. The senior of the three executives who will assume Mr. Reupke's duties is Nigel Judah, 58, finance director and a Reuters board director. Peter Holland, 45, deputy general manager, becomes director of corporate affairs. And Patrick Mannix, 46, international technical manager, becomes director of group quality programs. After reading the above, is "Peter Holland" the correct answer to the question "What three senior Reuters executives are sharing the role left by Reupke?"? OPTIONS:
- no
- yes

Answer:
yes

Input: I had drunk too much, I confess, though we all had. Somehow, Tasha and I began to argue the worth of Solevgrad jazz, as inconsequential a topic as I can imagine. She had studied it in school, so she thought herself as an expert. I once had a neighbor who played it constantly, loudly, and badly, so I thought I knew it better. Malaquez tried to mediate, but I saw him as siding with Tasha. So, I think, did she. The subject shifted from music to Tasha's obsession with fame, undoubtedly by a leap that I made. She had no choice but to follow. (I do not remember any of this well, just now, nor do I care to. Those who are truly curious may look at the last act of "Captured Moments.") I remember suggesting, with characteristic tact, that she add Emil to her small list of major accomplishments. Malaquez glanced away, embarrassed. Tasha looked at me as if to say, "I will." She said, "I feel sorry for you, Nardo. I'll see Emil home." "Yes," I said, "Do that," and did not care what she did, or why. Emil asked, "You're all right?" I muttered something he must have interpreted as assent. They both walked up to Emil's home while I watched the scarlet moonlight ripple on distant waves. Disgusted with Tasha but more disgusted with myself, I finally realized she would not return that night and went into The Sleeping Flamingo to drink myself to sleep. She had not come home when I woke in mid-morning.
"What discussion topic does Nardo feel that Tasha was obligated to follow along with?" is "His neighbor who played jazz constantly and loudly"?

OPTIONS:
- no
- yes
Output: no

Input: At 8:38, Ong told Gonzalez that the plane was flying erratically again. Around this time Sweeney told Woodward that the hijackers were Middle Easterners, naming three of their seat numbers. One spoke very little English and one spoke excellent English. The hijackers had gained entry to the cockpit, and she did not know how. The aircraft was in a rapid descent. At 8:41, Sweeney told Woodward that passengers in coach were under the impression that there was a routine medical emergency in first class. Other flight attendants were busy at duties such as getting medical supplies while Ong and Sweeney were reporting the events. At 8:41, in American's operations center, a colleague told Marquis that the air traffic controllers declared Flight 11 a hijacking and "think he's [American 11] headed toward Kennedy [airport in New York City]. They're moving everybody out of the way. They seem to have him on a primary radar. They seem to think that he is descending." At 8:44, Gonzalez reported losing phone contact with Ong. About this same time Sweeney reported to Woodward, "Something is wrong. We are in a rapid descent . we are all over the place." Woodward asked Sweeney to look out the window to see if she could determine where they were.

Does the response "Few minutes" correctly answer the question "After receiving a report that they were flying erratically again, how long did it take for the ground control to declare flight 11 a hijacking and start clearing out the airport landing area and why did they do this."?

OPTIONS:
- no
- yes
***
Output: no

Question:
Taliban and American aid. After the September 11 attacks, it was necessary for conservatives to somehow explain away the fact that the US government gave 245 million dollars to the new evildoers du jour. Never mind the fact that authors such as Robert Scheer warned of aiding the Taliban as early as in May 2001. Never mind that they did so not out of some humanitarian motivation, but because of the Taliban's violent enforcement of the ban on opium poppies. Never mind that in a regime that is controlled by warlords, it does not matter who is authorized to distribute the aid -- the ruling regional warlords will seize control of it and use it to their own advantage. Never mind that this very argument has been used by hawks in opposition to sending humanitarian aid to Iraq's Saddam Hussein. Never mind that the Taliban continued selling opium in spite of the deal. Never mind that this is all documented on Michael Moore's website about the film. Gun homicides. Statistics are Moore's weakest point, and it is surprising that his critics don't dwell on them longer. That's because they know all too well that Moore is correct: The United States have a far greater homicide rate (both gun- and non-gun) than most other first world countries. His main mistake is that he does not use population corrected data, his second mistake is that he does not cite his sources (and, as you correctly point out, he probably uses different reporting methods for the different countries). A good comparison of international homicide rates can be found on the relatively neutral guncite.com website. After reading the above, is "The film about his website" the correct answer to the question "For what topic does Michael Moore fail to cite his sources?"? OPTIONS:
- no
- yes

Answer:
no