Question:
Paul put the despised watch away And laid out before him his array Of stones and metals, and when the morning Struck the stones to their best adorning, He chose the brightest, and this new watch Was so light and thin it seemed to catch The sunlight's nothingness, and its gleam. Topazes ran in a foamy stream Over the cover, the hands were studded With garnets, and seemed red roses, budded. The face was of crystal, and engraved Upon it the figures flashed and waved With zircons, and beryls, and amethysts. It took a week to make, and his trysts At night with the Shadow were his alone. Paul swore not to speak till his task was done. The night that the jewel was worthy to give. Paul watched the long hours of daylight live To the faintest streak; then lit his light, And sharp against the wall's pure white The outline of the Shadow started Into form. His burning-hearted Words so long imprisoned swelled To tumbling speech. Like one compelled, He told the lady all his love, And holding out the watch above His head, he knelt, imploring some Littlest sign. The Shadow was dumb. After reading the above, is "Two weeks" the correct answer to the question "How long did it take to make the watch?"? OPTIONS:
- no
- yes

Answer:
no

Input: Zinni feared that Bin Laden would in the future locate himself in cities, where U.S. missiles could kill thousands of Afghans. He worried also lest Pakistani authorities not get adequate warning, think the missiles came from India, RESPONSES TO AL QAEDA'S INITIAL ASSAULTS 135 and do something that everyone would later regret. Discussing potential repercussions in the region of his military responsibility, Zinni said, "It was easy to take the shot from Washington and walk away from it. We had to live there." Zinni's distinct preference would have been to build up counterterrorism capabilities in neighboring countries such as Uzbekistan. But he told us that he could not drum up much interest in or money for such a purpose from Washington, partly, he thought, because these countries had dictatorial governments. After the decision-in which fear of collateral damage was an important factor- not to use cruise missiles against Kandahar in December 1998, Shelton and officers in the Pentagon developed plans for using an AC-130 gunship instead of cruise missile strikes. Designed specifically for the special forces, the version of the AC-130 known as "Spooky"can fly in fast or from high altitude, undetected by radar; guided to its zone by extraordinarily complex electronics, it is capable of rapidly firing precision-guided 25, 40, and 105 mm projectiles. Because this system could target more precisely than a salvo of cruise missiles, it had a much lower risk of causing collateral damage. After giving Clarke a briefing and being encouraged to proceed, Shelton formally directed Zinni and General Peter Schoomaker, who headed the Special Operations Command, to develop plans for an AC-130 mission against Bin Laden's headquarters and infrastructure in Afghanistan. The Joint Staff prepared a decision paper for deployment of the Special Operations aircraft. Though Berger and Clarke continued to indicate interest in this option, the AC-130s were never deployed. Clarke wrote at the time that Zinni opposed their use, and John Maher, the Joint Staff 's deputy director of operations, agreed that this was Zinni's position. Zinni himself does not recall blocking the option. He told us that he understood the Special Operations Command had never thought the intelligence good enough to justify actually moving AC-130s into position. Schoomaker says, on the contrary, that he thought the AC-130 option feasible. The most likely explanation for the two generals' differing recollections is that both of them thought serious preparation for any such operations would require a long-term redeployment of Special Operations forces to the Middle East or South Asia. The AC-130s would need bases because the aircraft's unrefueled range was only a little over 2,000 miles.
"What did the head of special operation command think of the option" is "He thought it was feasible but that serious preparation for any such operations would require a long-term redeployment of Special Operations forces to the Middle East or South Asia"?

OPTIONS:
- no
- yes
Output: yes

Input: If you have a mass of 50 kg on Earth, what is your weight in newtons? An object with more mass is pulled by gravity with greater force. Mass and weight are closely related. However, the weight of an object can change if the force of gravity changes. On Earth, the force of gravity is the same everywhere. So how does the force of gravity change? It doesnt if you stay on Earth. What if we travel to another planet or moon in our solar system? Look at the photo of astronaut Edwin E. Aldrin Jr. taken by fellow astronaut Neil Armstrong in the Figure. They were the first humans to walk on the moon. An astronaut weighs less on the moon than he would on Earth. This is because the moons gravity is weaker than Earths. The astronauts mass, on the other hand, did not change. He still contained the same amount of matter on the moon as he did on Earth. If the astronaut weighed 175 pounds on Earth, he would have weighed only 29 pounds on the moon. If his mass on Earth was 80 kg, what would his mass have been on the moon? [Figure 3]

Does the response "On Earth it stays the same but it would be different on another planet or moon in our solar system" correctly answer the question "How does gravity change?"?

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

Density is also an important physical property of matter. The concept of density combines what we know about an objects mass and volume. Density reflects how closely packed the particles of matter are. When particles are packed together more tightly, matter is more dense. Differences in density of matter explain many phenomena. It explains why helium balloons rise. It explains why currents such as the Gulf Stream flow through the oceans. It explains why some things float in or sink. You can see this in action by pouring vegetable oil into water. You can see a colorful demonstration in this video.

Question: "What does density tell?"

OPTIONS:
- no
- yes

Answer: "The distance between points"

Response: no

Question:
Flowing water causes sediment to move. Flowing water can erode both rocks and soil. You have already learned that materials can dissolve in water. With enough time, even rocks can be dissolved by water. This process happens really slowly. It may take over a million years to dissolve a rock. It doesnt matter how big the rock is. With enough time, flowing water can dissolve it. Moving water also has the ability to move small pieces of rock and soil. How can water move a rock? Doesnt it need energy? Of course, water gets its energy because it is moving. Moving water has kinetic energy. Things that have more energy can do more work. When water stops moving it will have no energy. It will no longer be able to move the rock and soil. When this happens the rock and soil will settle to the bottom of the calm water. Scientists call this process deposition. After reading the above, is "Yes water has kinetic energy" the correct answer to the question "Is energy required for water to move a rock?"? OPTIONS:
- no
- yes

Answer:
yes