In this task, you're given an article, a question which often contains a blank, four options (associated with "A", "B", "C", "D") and the answer to that question. Your task is to classify whether the given answer is correct or not by providing "Yes" or "No", based on the article.

[Q]: Article: Does it drive you crazy that your cell phone needs to be frequently charged for hours? A team of scientists led by professor Harold Kung at Northwestern University in the US may have solved your problem. They developed a lithium ion batery that holds 10 times as much power and charges 10 times more quickly than standard batteries, according to the BBC in a report on November 15. Lithium ion bateries are rechargeable and are widely used in cameras, smartphones and laptops. They charge through a chemical reaction in which lithium ions are sent between the two ends of a battery. How much power the battery holds and how fast it charges are limited by two things:how many lithium ions it has and how quickly these ions move. Current rechargeable batteries have an anode made of many carbon-based graphene sheets. To increase energy capacity, former experiments have tried to replace the carbon with silicon, which can hold far more lithium ions. However, this method did not work because the silicon was not stable enough. Kung's team managed to stabilize the silicon. They put clusters of silicon between the graphene sheets like a sandwich so that the silicon could not move around freely and take away the energy. The speed at which a battery charges is hindered by the shape of the graphene sheets because it takes a long time for the lithium to travel from one side of the sheet to the other.Sometimes a "traffic jam" occurs around the edges of the graphene. To solve this problem, Kung's team used a special chemical process to create tiny holes of 10 to 20 nanometers wide in the graphene sheets so the lithium ions would have a "shortcut" and be able to travel directly to the other side. This reduced the time it took the battery to recharge. About 15 minutes of charging can last more than a week. "Even after 150 charges, which would be one year or more of operation, the battery is still five times more effective than lithium ion batteries on the market today," said Kung. The technology could be widely available within five years, the researchers said.
Question: What is the major problem of current rechargeable batteries?
Options: (A) They are not very stable. (B) They cannot hold enough silicon. (C) They have limited energy capacity. (D) The space between the graphene sheets is too big.
Asnwer: A
[A]: No

[Q]: Article: After two classes, I started to recognize several of the faces in each class. There was always someone braver than the others who would introduce themselves and ask me questions about how I was liking Forks. I tried to be , so mostly I just lied a lot to appear to be skilled at dealing with people. At least I never needed the map. One girl sat next to me in both Trig and Spanish, and she walked with me to the cafeteria for lunch. She was tiny, several inches shorter than my five feet four inches, but her wildly curly dark hair made up a lot of the difference between our heights. I couldn't remember her name, so I smiled and nodded as she gossiped about teachers and classes. I didn't try to keep up. We sat at the end of a full table with several of her friends, who she introduced to me. I forgot all their names as soon as she spoke them. They seemed impressed by her bravery in speaking to me. The boy from England Eric, waved at me from across the room. It was there, sitting in the lunchroom, trying to make conversation with seven curious strangers, that I first saw them. They were sitting in the corner of the cafeteria, as far away from where I sat as possible in the long room. There were five of them. They weren't talking, and they weren't eating, though they each had a tray of untouched food in front of them. They weren't staring at me, unlike most of the other students, so it was safe to stare at them without fear of meeting an over interested pair of eyes. But it was none of these things that caught and held my attention. I stared because their faces, so different, so similar, were all extremely, inhumanly beautiful. They were faces you never expected to see except perhaps on the airbrushed pages of a fashion magazine, or painted by an old master as the face of an angel. It was hard to decide who was the most beautiful -- maybe the perfect blond girl, or the bronze-haired boy.
Question: From the passage, we can infer that _ .
Options: (A) "I" was really liking the new place. (B) "I" had a bad memory, so it's hard to remember names. (C) "I" was good at making friends. (D) "I" was not interested in what the girl said.
Asnwer: A
[A]: No

[Q]: Article: Are we getting more stupid? According to Gerald Crabtree, a scientist at Stanford University in the US, we are. You may not want to hear this, but Crabtree believes that human intelligence reached its peak more than 2,000 years ago and ever since then has been going downhill. "If an average Greek from 1,000 BC were transported to modern times, he or she would be one of the brightest among us," Crabtree told The Guardian. At the heart of Crabtree's thinking is a simple idea. In the past, intelligence was critical for survival when our ancestors had to avoid dangerous animals and hunt for food. The difference of being smart or stupid is often life or death. However, after the spread of agriculture, when our ancestors began to live in dense farming communities, the need to keep their intelligence in peak condition gradually reduced. This is not hard to understand. Most of the time, pressure is what keeps us going - you need the pressure from your teachers to finish your homework; the pressure of looking pretty prompts you to lose weight when summer comes. And the same is also true of our intelligence - if we think less, we become less smart. These mutations are harmful to our intelligence and they were all developed in the past 3,000 years. The other evidence that Crabtree holds is in our genes. He found that among the 2,000 to 5,000 genes that we have that determine human intelligence , there are two or more mutations in each of us. However, Crabtree's theory has been criticized by some who say that early humans may have better hunting and surviving abilities, but people today have developed a more diverse intelligence. For example, spearing a tiger doesn't necessarily require more brainpower than playing chess or writing a poem. Moreover, the power of modern education means a lot more people have the opportunity to learn nowadays. "You wouldn't get Stephen Hawking 2,000 years ago. He just wouldn't exist," Thomas Hills of the University of Warwick, UK, told Live Science. "But now we have people of his intellectual capacity doing things and making insights that we would never have achieved in our environment of evolutionary adaptation."
Question: What is Crabtree's recent finding according to the article?
Options: (A) The Greeks from 1,000 BC could have been the smartest in human history. (B) Our ancient ancestors had no better surviving abilities than we do nowadays. (C) Humans have been getting steadily more intelligent since the invention of farming. (D) Mutations in genes that decide human intelligence have affected the development of intelligence.
Asnwer: D
[A]:
Yes