One of the most dramatic changes in priorities proposed by the City Council would shift $25.6 million from funding for court-appointed lawyers to the Legal Aid Society. In a document released yesterday to justify its reordered priorities, the Council contended that Legal Aid can achieve greater economies of scale than lawyers appointed pursuant to Article 18-B of the County Law. The Council document also noted that "inexplicably" 18-B lawyers are handling 50 percent of the indigent criminal cases in New York City, even though their mandate is to handle only multi-defendant cases where the Legal Aid Society had a conflict. In past years, the City Council had consistently added $5.6 million to the $54.7 million proposed for the Legal Aid Society by former Mayor Giuliani, bringing the total to just a shade over $60 million. But this year for the first time, the Council is proposing shifting more than $20 million in funds earmarked by the Mayor for 18-B lawyers to the Legal Aid Society, which would increase its total funding to $80.4 million. That would reflect a jump in its current finding of about one-third. Meantime, the City Council proposed slashing the Mayor's allocation of $62.8 million for 18-B lawyers by 66 percent, to $21.4 million.

Question: "What did the Council do about 18-B lawyers handling 50 percent of the indigent criminal cases in New York City?"

Response: "Diverting or adding more funds to Legal Aid"
OPTIONS:
- no
- yes

A: yes

Problem: General relativity includes a dynamical spacetime, so it is difficult to see how to identify the conserved energy and momentum. Noether's theorem allows these quantities to be determined from a Lagrangian with translation invariance, but general covariance makes translation invariance into something of a gauge symmetry. The energy and momentum derived within general relativity by Noether's presecriptions do not make a real tensor for this reason. Einstein argued that this is true for fundamental reasons, because the gravitational field could be made to vanish by a choice of coordinates. He maintained that the non-covariant energy momentum pseudotensor was in fact the best description of the energy momentum distribution in a gravitational field. This approach has been echoed by Lev Landau and Evgeny Lifshitz, and others, and has become standard. The use of non-covariant objects like pseudotensors was heavily criticized in 1917 by Erwin Schrodinger and others.

Question: "When did the standard approach to energy momentum become criticized?"

Answer: "1917"

OPTIONS:
- no
- yes
Answer: yes

Question:
The digestive system is the body system that digests food. It digest food in two ways, mechanically and chemically. Both help in the process of turning food into nutrients. The digestive system also eliminates solid food waste. The major organs of the digestive system include the mouth, esophagus, stomach, and small and large in- testines. These organs all work together to help you gain energy from the food you eat. Digestion starts in the mouth. When food is swallowed, it travels through the esophagus to the stomach. In the stomach, digestion continues and a small amount of absorption of nutrients takes place. Most chemical digestion and nearly all absorption of nutrients take place in the small intestine. This organ consists of three parts: duodenum, jejunum, and ileum. The large intestine is the last stop in the digestive system. This is where water is absorbed. The food not digested is released as waste. After reading the above, is "Turns food into energy and Absorbs Water" the correct answer to the question "What two things does the digestion system do for the body?"? OPTIONS:
- no
- yes

Answer:
yes

Input: While this process moved along, diplomacy continued its rounds. Direct pressure on the Taliban had proved unsuccessful. As one NSC staff note put it, "Under the Taliban, Afghanistan is not so much a state sponsor of terrorism as it is a state sponsored by terrorists." In early 2000, the United States began a high-level effort to persuade Pakistan to use its influence over the Taliban. In January 2000, Assistant Secretary of State Karl Inderfurth and the State Department's counterterrorism coordinator, Michael Sheehan, met with General Musharraf in Islamabad, dangling before him the possibility of a presidential visit in March as a reward for Pakistani cooperation. Such a visit was coveted by Musharraf, partly as a sign of his government's legitimacy. He told the two envoys that he would meet with Mullah Omar and press him on Bin Laden. They left, however, reporting to Washington that Pakistan was unlikely in fact to do anything," given what it sees as the benefits of Taliban control of Afghanistan." President Clinton was scheduled to travel to India. The State Department felt that he should not visit India without also visiting Pakistan. The Secret Service and the CIA, however, warned in the strongest terms that visiting Pakistan would risk the President's life. Counterterrorism officials also argued that Pakistan had not done enough to merit a presidential visit. But President Clinton insisted on including Pakistan in the itinerary for his trip to South Asia. His one-day stopover on March 25, 2000, was the first time a U.S. president had been there since 1969. At his meeting with Musharraf and others, President Clinton concentrated on tensions between Pakistan and India and the dangers of nuclear proliferation, but also discussed Bin Laden. President Clinton told us that when he pulled Musharraf aside for a brief, one-on-one meeting, he pleaded with the general for help regarding Bin Laden." I offered him the moon when I went to see him, in terms of better relations with the United States, if he'd help us get Bin Laden and deal with another issue or two." The U.S. effort continued.

Does the response "To show his government's legitimacy" correctly answer the question "Why did General Musharraf promise Karl Inderfurth and Michael Sheehan that he would meet with Mullah Omar and press him on Bin Laden?"?

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