Input: Enter the Shoguns: Japan's austere, ruthless, but statesmanlike new ruler, Yoritomo Minamoto, set up his government in Kamakura (just south of modern Tokyo), well away from the "softening" influence of court life that had been the undoing of his predecessor, Kiyomori. First of the national rulers to take the title of sei-i tai-shogun ("barbarian-subduing great general"), Minamoto expanded and consolidated his power by confiscating lands from some of the defeated Taira and redistributing them to his samurai vassals. Minamoto died in 1199, and the feudal structure passed intact to the tutelage of his widow's family, the Hojo, who were content to play regent to a figurehead shogun, in much the same way as the Fujiwara had done with the emperor. The fiction of Japanese imperial power had become infinitely extendable. The emperor at Kyotostill seconded by a Fujiwara regent at courtlegitimized a Minamoto who was himself a military dictator controlled by a Hojo regent. In a country where form and substance were inextricably interrelated, two things counted in politics: symbolic authority and real power. Neither could exist without the other. A thwarted Mongol invasion in 1274 weakened the Kamakura regime. The fighting brought none of the usual spoils of war that provincial warlords and samurai had come to expect as payment. And the treasury was empty after earthquake, famine, and plague had crippled the economy. Buddhist monasteries were using their private armies to support imperial ambitions to bring power back to Kyoto. Worst of all, the Kamakura warriors, resenting the way the Kyoto court referred to them as "Eastern barbarians," sought refinement in a ruinous taste for luxury: extravagant feasts, rich costumes, and opulent homes. Kamakura was falling apart.

Does the response "By setting up set up a government in Kamakura" correctly answer the question "How did Minamoto expand his power?"?

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

Input: Johnnie had a set of small volumes of English verse, extensively annotated by his own hand, which Stoddard had brought to her early in their acquaintance, leaving it with her more as a gift than as a loan. She kept these little books after all the others had gone back. She had read and reread them--cullings from Chaucer, from Spenser, from the Elizabethan lyrists, the border balladry, fierce, tender, oh, so human--till she knew pages of them by heart, and their vocabulary influenced her own, their imagery tinged all her leisure thoughts. It seemed to her, whenever she debated returning them, that she could not bear it. She would get them out and sit with one of them open in her hands, not reading, but staring at the pages with unseeing eyes, passing her fingers over it, as one strokes a beloved hand, or turning through each book only to find the pencilled words in the margins. She would be giving up part of herself when she took these back. Yet it had to be done, and one miserable morning she made them all into a neat package, intending to carry them to the mill and place them on Stoddard's desk thus early, when nobody would be in the office. Then the children came in; Deanie was half sick; and in the distress of getting the ailing child comfortably into her own bed, Johnnie forgot the books. Taking them in at noon, she met Stoddard himself.

Does the response "They did not belong to her" correctly answer the question "Since the books were given more as a gift than as a loan, why would Johnnie feel the need to return the books to Stoddard?"?

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

Input: Backers of Legal Aid services for the poor are pushing a measure that would increase court filing fees in Kentucky to raise money for the program, which faces steep funding cuts. The proposed bill, sponsored by Rep. Charles Geveden, D-Wickliffe, would double the portion of the fee that goes to Legal Aid -- in district court to $10 from $5 and in circuit court to $20 from $10. Kentucky's current fee for filing a case in district court is $50.50, and in circuit court $108. The increase still would leave Kentucky's filing fee costs below those of surrounding states and would raise about $1.3 million a year -- almost enough to replace what Legal Aid is losing from federal and other sources, said Jamie Hamon, executive director of the Access to Justice Foundation, a state poverty law resource center in Lexington. Geveden said his measure appears to be the only potential source of money for the program, which is being forced to lay off workers and close offices around the state. Geveden said he's concerned because federal funding hasn't increased in recent years, and states with increased poverty are taking a greater share of the money. ''If you don't come up with the money somewhere, legal services to people in need will diminish or go away,'' he said. Hamon said the proposed bill has attracted a number of co-sponsors, and Legal Aid backers are hoping to get it passed in the upcoming legislative session. Hamon said she knows fee increases aren't popular with lawmakers but hopes they realize the crisis Legal Aid is facing. ''A lot of poor people are not going to get served,'' she said. The measure has the endorsement of the Kentucky Bar Association. The association's board of governors voted unanimously last month to back the bill, said KBA President Stephen Catron, a Bowling Green lawyer. Legal Aid ''has been a godsend to a great number of people in this state,'' Catron said. ''We simply must find a way to provide those services to the public.'' Larry York, executive director of Appalachian Regional Defense Fund, which provides Legal Aid services in 37 Eastern Kentucky counties and is a KBA board member, said he hopes the measure is approved. ''It would really offset the current cuts,'' he said.

Does the response "The Kentucky Bar Association" correctly answer the question "What organization has endorses the measure to increase legal aid fees?"?

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

Input: We waited for half an hour, watching the smoke curling over the house, and then, judging that the Indians had made off for fear of being ambushed, we crossed the clearing. It took but a glance to read the story. The women had been washing by the little brook before the cabin, with the children playing about them, when the Indians had come up and with a single volley killed them all except the child we had heard crying. They had swooped down upon their victims, torn the scalps from their heads, looted the house, and set fire to it. We dragged out the body of the woman which had been thrown within, in the hope that a spark of life might yet remain, but she was quite dead. Beneath the warrior Spiltdorph had shot we found the child. It was a boy of some six or seven years, and so covered with blood that it seemed it must be dead. But we stripped it and washed it in the brook, and found no wounds upon it except in the head, where it had been struck with a hatchet before its scalp had been stripped off. The cold water brought it back to life and it began to cry again, whereat Spiltdorph took off his coat and wrapped it tenderly about it.

Does the response "A moment" correctly answer the question "After waiting and watching for a half hour, the arrived at the scene and figured out what was going on. How long did it take to figure it out?"?

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