Input: Right after the Pentagon was hit, NEADS learned of another possible hijacked aircraft. It was an aircraft that in fact had not been hijacked at all. After the second World Trade Center crash, Boston Center managers recognized that both aircraft were transcontinental 767 jetliners that had departed Logan Airport. Remembering the "we have some planes" remark, Boston Center guessed that Delta 1989 might also be hijacked. Boston Center called NEADS at 9:41 and identified Delta 1989, a 767 jet that had left Logan Airport for Las Vegas, as a possible hijack. NEADS warned the FAA's Cleveland Center to watch Delta 1989. The Command Center and FAA headquarters watched it too. During the course of the morning, there were multiple erroneous reports of hijacked aircraft. The report of American 11 heading south was the first; Delta 1989 was the second. NEADS never lost track of Delta 1989, and even ordered fighter aircraft from Ohio and Michigan to intercept it. The flight never turned off its transponder. NEADS soon learned that the aircraft was not hijacked, and tracked Delta 1989 as it reversed course over Toledo, headed east, and landed in Cleveland. But another aircraft was heading toward Washington, an aircraft about which NORAD had heard nothing: United 93. United Airlines Flight 93 FAA Awareness. At 9:27, after having been in the air for 45 minutes, United 93 acknowledged a transmission from the Cleveland Center controller. This was the last normal contact the FAA had with the flight. Less than a minute later, the Cleveland controller and the pilots of aircraft in the vicinity heard "a radio transmission of unintelligible sounds of possible screaming or a struggle from an unknown origin." The controller responded, seconds later: "Somebody call Cleveland?"This was followed by a second radio transmission, with sounds of screaming.

Does the response "Boston Center called NEADS at 9:41" correctly answer the question "At what time Boston Center called the NEADS"?
***
Output: yes

Input: Plants also detect the daily cycle of light and darkness. Do you know how plants respond to these changes? Some plants open their leaves during the day. It is during these hours the plant can collect sunlight. At night, the plant closes its leaves to prevent water loss. Many plants respond to the change in the length of the day. As days grow shorter, some plants respond by going dormant. Dormant is when a plant suspends its growth. It does this in order to survive. Shorter days signal the coming of winter. Winter in most areas means extreme cold. It is also very dry in the winter months. As winter approaches, some plants respond by their leaves changing color. After the change in color, they fall off. This dormancy period helps trees. It allows them to survive the cold and dry winter. Plants only want to grow when conditions are right.

Does the response "Yes" correctly answer the question "Do some plants' leaves fall off in the winter months?"?
***
Output: yes

Input: Tocqueville asserted that the values that had triumphed in the North and were present in the South had begun to suffocate old-world ethics and social arrangements. Legislatures abolished primogeniture and entails, resulting in more widely distributed land holdings. This was a contrast to the general aristocratic pattern in which only the eldest child, usually a man, inherited the estate, which had the effect of keeping large estates intact from generation to generation. In America, in contrast, landed elites were less likely to pass on fortunes to a single child by the action of primogeniture, which meant that as time went by, large estates became broken up within a few generations which, in turn, made the children more equal overall. It was not always a negative development, according to Joshua Kaplan's interpretation of Tocqueville, since bonds of affection and shared experience between children often replaced the more formal relation between the eldest child and the siblings, characteristic of the previous aristocratic pattern. Overall, in the new democracies, hereditary fortunes became exceedingly difficult to secure and more people were forced to struggle for their own living. This rapidly democratizing society, as Tocqueville understood it, had a population devoted to "middling" values which wanted to amass, through hard work, vast fortunes. In Tocqueville's mind, this explained why America was so different from Europe. In Europe, he claimed, nobody cared about making money. The lower classes had no hope of gaining more than minimal wealth, while the upper classes found it crass, vulgar, and unbecoming of their sort to care about something as unseemly as money; many were virtually guaranteed wealth and took it for granted. At the same time in America, workers would see people fashioned in exquisite attire and merely proclaim that through hard work they too would soon possess the fortune necessary to enjoy such luxuries. Despite maintaining with Aristotle, Montesquieu, and others that the balance of property determined the balance of power, Tocqueville argued that, as America showed, equitable property holdings did not ensure the rule of the best men. In fact, it did quite the opposite. The widespread, relatively equitable property ownership which distinguished America and determined its mores and values also explained why the American masses held elites in such contempt.

Does the response "Because they were all poor" correctly answer the question "Why were the children of American elites more equal to non-elite children than were the children of European elites?"?
***
Output: no

Input: Comanche Indians have trapped the evil of their land in a monster made up of a mixture of other animals . The Comanche have placed a protective spear in the ground to contain the evil . A young boy pulls the spear from the ground while pocketing a rabbit foot talisman . He starts to play with the spear . A Comanche catches the boy , and startled , he runs away with the rabbit's foot . The Native American places the spear back , realizing too late that the rabbits foot is now gone . After that , white men come and start drilling for oil . Skip to current time , a divorced father , Mance Cashen , moves to the area with his new wife , baby , and his son from his first marriage , Willy ( played by ( ( Chris Miller , who is visiting . Willy notices something peculiar in the house and tries to warn his father and step-mother . They do not believe him . Willy is attacked while on a tire swing over a small water hole . The creature grabs his foot and Willy struggles , eventually getting away . He eventually befriends the local drunk , T. C. van Houten . A nice old man with some bad memories who knows something about the evil near the oil well and was in a situation similar to Willy's . In the meantime a Comanche Indian , Chief Sam John , comes to warn Mance of the evil and the need to keep it contained . Sam John informs Mance the evil was originally intended to stop the white man , but it is indiscriminate in whom it kills instead . Mance will have none of it . Willy eventually takes a spear he finds on his property to Sam John and tries to find out what is going on .

Does the response "John" correctly answer the question "What is the name of the old man with whom Willy became friends?"?
***
Output:
no