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.

Question: Imagine you're in a bar and order a pint of beer, which is 3.20. You only have a 10 note but want to tip the barkeeper. As you can't use 'keep the change' for obvious reasons, what do you say to tip the barkeeper 80 pence, making the total price 4?
Answer: Please don't! In those sensible countries whose worker economy does not rely predominantly upon the random generosity of strangers (which never made any sense to me at all, but there we go), the cost of item X is C(X) and C(X) is what the till comes up with when you hit the button for X. It's insanely awkward to be given D but instructed to charge E, then to try to get the till to accept E as payment for X instead of C(X) whilst rendering D-E in change. And then all you're going to do is put D-C(X) in a little jar anyway. At best it takes a moment to figure out; at worst it ruins the end-of-day take calculations when a take of T is no longer equal to C(X)*N(X) across all items X. It could even throw off a stock check if executed sufficiently poorly by front-line staff. Even worse, bosses could start to suspect misconduct from staff fiddling the money they've been given by customers, and it would be difficult to prove your innocence from video-only surveillance. Just make your transaction like a normal person, paying D for X and getting D-C(X) as change in return then say "here, keep this; I have enough shrapnel as it is!", make an audible awkward chuckle, smile, and walk away.
no

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: In formal contexts, I would go with "e.g." and "i.e.", with two periods and without a whitespace. The spellings without periods are quite popular, but informal. For example, Merriam-Webster does not have an entry for either "eg" or "ie". Wiktionary marks "eg." and "eg" as informal, and offers the following usage notes: Opinion is mixed about whether this term should be italicized as although it is Latin, it has become part of standard English, and whether it should be written with a separating space "e. g." as it was originally two separate words. It also offers the following usage notes for "i.e.": Opinion is mixed about whether the abbreviation should be italicized, or whether there should be a separating non-breaking space as in i. e.. ie is often found in current usage, and is perhaps now considered acceptable. Personally, I would argue that there's no need whatsoever to italicize "e.g." or "i.e.". Both expressions are extremely common in English, and have been for a long time. They are full-fledged citizens of the English language, and as such, they do not have to be italicized as if they were foreign words.
yes

Question: How can you explain that this double negation is not a double negation? Is there a rule in English about this kind of sentence? PS / Do I have to mention Pink Floyd Copyright ? :-) Edit : Since there are a lot of Pink Floyd related explanation, I'll bring a Freddy Mercury one : "I don't have time for no monkey business", which I also understand as "I don't have time for monkey business". Am I right ?
Answer: You could assume that commas have been left out: "We do, not need, no education" in which case the implication would me that although education is needed, they do not 'do' it (incorrect, but could be appropriate as slang). Alternatively: "We do not [have], need no, education" Where the repition is used as emphasis: "we do not [have] education, and we need no education" Both of these are a bit of a stretch, and while possible, I doubt they are what Pink Floyd intended.
no