Input: The inhabited history of the Las Vegas Valley stretches to 23,000 b.c. , when much of the area was covered by a prehistoric lake. During this period, the indigenous people lived in caves, hunting the mammals that gathered at the shoreline. The landscape of the valley changed dramatically over the next 200 centuries. The glaciers feeding the lake melted away and the lake evaporated. Fossils tell an obscure story of man's slow and sporadic development. Around 3000 b.c. , native Archaic Indians began to develop a lasting hunting and gathering culture. By this time, the valley was in much the same geographic state as it exists in today, with one exceptionthe presence of artesian springs that bubbled to the surface in several areas. These springs fed a network of streams draining through the Las Vegas Wash to the Colorado River. The areas surrounding the springs were desert oases: sprawling collections of grasses, trees, and wildlife. Many springs lay in areas that would eventually become the center of the modern Las Vegas metropolis. For about 4000 years, the Archaics thrived in a culture that included many signs of early civilization. Signs of even more advancement appeared halfway through the first millennium a.d. , when the Anasazi Indians inhabited the valley. Far more progressive than the Archaics, the Anasazi utilized such formal agricultural techniques as irrigation to assist their harvest. This permitted the Anasazi to achieve a benchmark of advanced societythe ability to live in permanent shelters year-round without need to follow wildlife. Mysteriously, the Anasazi vanished from the valley around a.d.

Does the response "Las Vegas Valley" correctly answer the question "Where did the Anasazi live?"?
***
Output: 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 "South Asia" correctly answer the question "Where was President Clinton's one day stop-over on March 25, 2000?"?
***
Output: yes

Input: Flowing water causes sediment to move. Flowing water can erode both rocks and soil. You have already learned that materials can dissolve in water. With enough time, even rocks can be dissolved by water. This process happens really slowly. It may take over a million years to dissolve a rock. It doesnt matter how big the rock is. With enough time, flowing water can dissolve it. Moving water also has the ability to move small pieces of rock and soil. How can water move a rock? Doesnt it need energy? Of course, water gets its energy because it is moving. Moving water has kinetic energy. Things that have more energy can do more work. When water stops moving it will have no energy. It will no longer be able to move the rock and soil. When this happens the rock and soil will settle to the bottom of the calm water. Scientists call this process deposition.

Does the response "Sediment to move and erosion of both rocks and soil" correctly answer the question "What are some things flowing water causes?"?
***
Output: yes

Input: From a human point of view, a habitat is where you live. It might be your city, town, or neighborhood. Your habitat can be altered. Most people move a few times in their lives. But a plant cannot move. An animal may not be suited to live in another area. A habitat is the natural home or environment of an organism. Humans often destroy the habitats of other organisms. The loss of habitat can cause the extinction of species. Extinction is when a species disappears forever. Once a species is extinct, it can never be brought back. Humans cause habitat destruction in many ways. There are two common ways this happens. Land may be cleared. Another way is when an animal or plant is brought to an area where it does not belong.

Does the response "growing trees" correctly answer the question "What are the two common ways human's cause habitat destruction?"?
***
Output:
no