Input: (CNN) -- Horror-meister, Stephen King calls George Pelecanos "perhaps the greatest living American crime writer." His stories are set in Pelecanos' hometown of Washington, D.C., but this is not the side of the U.S. capitol that you see portrayed on TV with white marble monuments, lawyers and lobbyists. Pelecanos is more interested in working families struggling to get by, the racial tensions in its ethnic neighborhoods and the low-lifes on the edges. His crime-writing peers call Pelecanos the "undisputed poet" of Washington's gritty side. The best-selling and award-winning author is out this week with his 17th and latest novel, "The Cut." It's the first in a new series featuring Iraq war veteran and private investigator Spero Lucas. When he's not working for a Washington defense attorney, Lucas recovers stolen property for a 40% cut. Now, a high-profile crime boss hires Lucas to find out who's been stealing from him, and it could turn out to be Lucas' biggest payday or an untimely end. While Pelecanos made his bones in the noir tradition, there's a definite "Western" feel to "The Cut." The new novel takes place in a morally gray and often violent world. It's peppered with pitch-perfect dialogue and captures the sights, sounds and taste of Washington in rich detail. In short, Pelecanos reads like the real deal. Pelecanos knows a thing or two about capturing the authenticity of urban America with an ethnically and socially diverse cast. In addition to his success as a novelist, Pelecanos is a producer and writer for HBO's New Orleans-set, "Treme." He was previously a producer and Emmy-nominated writer on the hit series "The Wire" and the miniseries "The Pacific." Read an excerpt from "The Cut" CNN recently spoke to Pelecanos about his new novel. The following is an edited transcript. CNN: Tell me more about your new character, Spero Lucas.
"According to the article, what is specifically different about how Washington DC (and its people) is portrayed in Pelecanos's stories to the typical portrayal?" is "White"?

OPTIONS:
- no
- yes
Output: no

Input: If you build a campfire, you start with a large stack of sticks and logs. As the fire burns, the stack slowly shrinks. By the end of the evening, all that is left is a small pile of ashes. What happened to the matter that you started with? Was it destroyed by the flames? It may seem that way. What do you think happened? The truth is that the same amount of matter still exists. The wood changed not only to ashes, but also to carbon dioxide, water vapor, and other gases. The gases floated off into the air, leaving behind just the ashes. Although matter was changed, it was not created or destroyed. Because the same amount of matter still exists, we can say that matter is conserved. You may wonder how it can be conserved if something is now missing? Assume you had measured the mass of the wood before you burned it. Assume you had also trapped the gases released by the burning wood and measured their mass and the mass of the ashes. What would you find? The ashes and gases combined have the same mass as the wood you started with. This example illustrates the law of conservation of mass.

Does the response "Nothing" correctly answer the question "What is left when the stack shrinks?"?

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

Problem: Unfortunately, because the zooming is rather fast, it is easy to miss the rest of the sentence, so as you correctly note, some viewers got an incorrect impression. It would have been fair for Moore to point out this possible misinterpretation on his website. However, the claim of deliberate distortion is ludicrous for several reasons: a) Moore clearly states that "before he came to Flint", Heston gave an interview. In the excerpt from said interview, we can see that it is from March. If Moore wanted to deceive his viewers, why would he say this, and show the month the interview was published? b) Why should Moore leave the words "Clinton is on the Today Show" visible in the text, which is necessary to correctly interpret the highlighted part? I reviewed the sequence several times and it is perfectly possible to see this text without pausing. c) Both the "soccer mom" interview and the sequences showing the NRA rally make no effort to distort the fact that this rally happened months after the fact. The camera lingers on Bush/Cheney posters, and the protestor is quoted as saying that "we wanted to let the NRA know that we haven't forgotten about Kayla Rolland". You make the hysterical claim that the interview "may be faked" (on the basis that no name is shown for the interviewee), but if Moore had faked it, why the hell should he put this sentence in the protestor's mouth, which directly contradicts the conclusion that the rally happened hours after Kayla's death? Why did Moore, the masterful deveiver, not edit this sequence out? This makes no sense. Opinions may vary on how tasteless it was for Heston to hold a pro gun rally on the location of the nation's youngest school shooting months after the fact, but this sequence of "Bowling" is without doubt the most unfair to Heston. The claims of deliberate distortion don't hold up when viewing the whole scene, though -- as "Hanlon's Razor" states, one should never attribute to malice what can be attributed to incompetence. The somewhat inept editing of the NRA press release has led some viewers to wrong conclusions, which is unfortunate, but Moore's critics have no interest in viewing the matter fairly. Had they done so, Moore himself would probably have apologized for the gaffe. In any case, at no point does Moore make a false statement, in contradiction to claims by critics that his documentary is "full of lies".

Question: "When did Heston give an interview?"

Answer: "Right after March ended"

OPTIONS:
- no
- yes
Answer:
no