In this task, you will be presented with a context passage, a question about that paragraph, and a possible answer to that question. The task is to check the validity of the answer. Answer with "Yes" or "No".

[EX Q]: (CNN) -- The photographer who took images of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto moments before her assassination Thursday told CNN he was "surprised" to see her rise through the sunroof of her vehicle to wave to supporters after delivering her speech. Getty Images photographer John Moore captured Benazir Bhutto waving, moments before he heard gunshots. "I ran up, got as close as I got, made a few pictures of her waving to the crowd," Getty Images senior staff photographer John Moore told CNN's online streaming news service, CNN.com Live, in a phone interview Thursday from Islamabad, Pakistan. "And then suddenly, there were a few gunshots that rang out, and she went down, she went down through the sunroof," he said. "And just at that moment I raised my camera up and the blast happened. ... And then, of course, there was chaos." Watch Moore describe Bhutto's final moments " Moore said he was about 20 yards away from Bhutto's vehicle when he took his photographs. Bhutto was rushed to Rawalpindi General Hospital, where she was pronounced dead. Moore said he had been following Bhutto's story since her return to Pakistan in October. He was present October 19 when a terror attack targeting her motorcade in Karachi killed 136 people. In the aftermath of that attack, "The rallies had been very small," because of high security, Moore said. However, the Rawalpindi rally was announced beforehand, he observed. "Whoever planned this attack -- they had time on their hands to plan everything properly, and you saw the results today," he said. Between 5,000 and 8,000 were at the Rawalpindi rally, which was held at a parkground, he said. "We [the news media] all expected it to be filled ... but there were less people there than most of us expected to see," he said. "When I talked with a number of people, they said that people were just afraid to come out, for the simple reason that they all remembered what happened in Karachi." Moore said he himself expected there could be another attack following the Karachi massacre. He said he stayed away from gates at the Rawalpindi parkground, where police were searching people, because he suspected that's where a bomb would go off. <sep>What gave the assassins time to properly plan their attack?<sep>The time between the parade and the rally
[EX A]: No

[EX Q]: In 1990, the U.S. Custom House in New York City was renamed after Hamilton. In 1880, his son John Church Hamilton commissioned Carl Conrads to sculpt a granite statue, now located in Central Park, New York City. One statue honoring Alexander Hamilton in Chicago was mired in controversy, at least concerning the surrounding architecture. Kate Sturges Buckingham (1858-1937), of the Buckingham Fountain family, commissioned the monument. Its impetus was that Treasury Secretary Hamilton "secured the nation's financial future and made it possible for her own family to make its fortune in grain elevators and banking. Consequently, John Angel was hired to model a figurative sculpture and the Finnish architect Eliel Saarinen was to create a "colossal architectural setting" for it. The proposed 80-foot tall columned shelter was poorly received. By Ms. Buckingham's death in 1937, the sculpture's setting. location and design were uncertain. Conspiracy allegations surfaced, and the matter became mired in litigation. After the courts ordered the construction to be completed by 1953, the trustees hired architect Samuel A. Marx. The structure was completed, had structural problems, and was eventually demolished in 1993. The statue was gilded, and is still on display. A statue, by James Earle Fraser, was dedicated on May 17, 1923, on the south terrace of the Treasury Building, in Washington. <sep>For how many years did Ms. Buckinghams statue of Alexander Hamilton stand?<sep>It stood for 40 years
[EX A]: Yes

[EX Q]: Modern criticism of Pope focuses on the man, his circumstances and motivations, prompted by theoretical perspectives such as Marxism, feminism and other forms of post-structuralism. Brean Hammond focuses on Pope's singular achievement in making an independent living solely from his writing. Laura Brown (1985) adopts a Marxist approach and accuses Pope of being an apologist for the oppressive upper classes. Hammond (1986) has studied Pope's work from the perspectives of cultural materialism and new historicism. Along Hammond's lines, Raymond Williams explains art as a set of practices influenced by broad cultural factors rather than simply the vague ideas of genius alone. Hayden Carruth, wrote that it was "Pope's rationalism and pandeism with which he wrote the greatest mock-epic in English literature." In Politics and Poetics of Transgression (1985) Peter Stallybrass and Allon White charge that Pope drew upon the low culture which he despised in order to produce his own "high art". They assert Pope was implicated in the very material he was attempting to exclude, not dissimilar to observations made in Pope's time. Colin Nicholson reads the poetry in terms of the Financial Revolution, showing how Pope responded to the corruption of the traditional 'landed interest' by the newly dominant 'moneyed interest'. Feminists have also criticised Pope's works. Ellen Pollak's The Poetics of Sexual Myth (1985) argues that Pope followed an anti-feminist tradition, that regarded women as inferior to men both intellectually and physically. Carolyn Williams contends that a crisis in the male role during the 18th century in Britain impacted Pope and his writing. <sep>Who are Pope's critics?<sep>Laura Brown and Ellen Pollak,
[EX A]:
Yes