instruction:
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".
question:
Mechanical energy is a combination of the energy of motion or position. This type of energy describes objects that are moving or could move. A moving ball can have energy from motion. An arrow can also have the energy of motion. Both are types of mechanical energy. Can you think of some other examples? Where does the energy of motion come from? It comes from the energy created by position. This energy is stored energy. This means it is not moving yet, but it has the potential to move. How can you store energy? The arrow gains energy from the drawn bow. As the arrow is released, the bow releases its stored energy and puts the arrow into motion. Can you think of some other ways to store energy using position? <sep>What kind of energy do objects that are moving or could move possess?<sep>Potential energy
answer:
No

question:
Rock layers extend laterally, or out to the sides. They may cover very large areas. This is especially true if they formed at the bottom of ancient seas. Seas are very large areas of water. Over time, sediment builds up on the seabed. They will be covered with the same types of material. As rocks form out of this sediment it will all be the same type. The rocks may be forced up above the water as Earths plates move. Rivers may eventually run across this area. The river will cut into the rock and erode it away. The layers of exposed rock on either side of the river will still match up. Look at the Grand Canyon in Figure 2.27. Its a good example of lateral continuity. You can clearly see the same rock layers on opposite sides of the canyon. The matching rock layers were deposited at the same time. They are the same age. <sep>What is the Grand Canyon a good example of?<sep>lateral continuity
answer:
Yes

question:
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. <sep>How were the American lower class's views of wealth and fine possessions different from those of the European lower class?<sep>They could make money via hard work versus in europe no one cared about making money
answer:
Yes