In this task, you are given a passage and a question regarding that passage. You must determine whether or not the question is answerable from the given passage. If a question is answerable, output should be 'True', otherwise 'False'. You must not consider any other information that is not provided in the passage while labelling True or False.

[Q]: Passage: A particularly simple example of a probabilistic test is the Fermat primality test, which relies on the fact (Fermat's little theorem) that npn (mod p) for any n if p is a prime number. If we have a number b that we want to test for primality, then we work out nb (mod b) for a random value of n as our test. A flaw with this test is that there are some composite numbers (the Carmichael numbers) that satisfy the Fermat identity even though they are not prime, so the test has no way of distinguishing between prime numbers and Carmichael numbers. Carmichael numbers are substantially rarer than prime numbers, though, so this test can be useful for practical purposes. More powerful extensions of the Fermat primality test, such as the Baillie-PSW, Miller-Rabin, and Solovay-Strassen tests, are guaranteed to fail at least some of the time when applied to a composite number. Question: What is the name of one impressive continuation of the Carmichael primality test?
[A]: False

[Q]: Passage: The historian Frederick W. Mote wrote that the usage of the term "social classes" for this system was misleading and that the position of people within the four-class system was not an indication of their actual social power and wealth, but just entailed "degrees of privilege" to which they were entitled institutionally and legally, so a person's standing within the classes was not a guarantee of their standing, since there were rich and well socially standing Chinese while there were less rich Mongol and Semu than there were Mongol and Semu who lived in poverty and were ill treated. Question: Who thought that the Yuan's social class system should be called social classes?
[A]: False

[Q]: Passage: The development of fundamental theories for forces proceeded along the lines of unification of disparate ideas. For example, Isaac Newton unified the force responsible for objects falling at the surface of the Earth with the force responsible for the orbits of celestial mechanics in his universal theory of gravitation. Michael Faraday and James Clerk Maxwell demonstrated that electric and magnetic forces were unified through one consistent theory of electromagnetism. In the 20th century, the development of quantum mechanics led to a modern understanding that the first three fundamental forces (all except gravity) are manifestations of matter (fermions) interacting by exchanging virtual particles called gauge bosons. This standard model of particle physics posits a similarity between the forces and led scientists to predict the unification of the weak and electromagnetic forces in electroweak theory subsequently confirmed by observation. The complete formulation of the standard model predicts an as yet unobserved Higgs mechanism, but observations such as neutrino oscillations indicate that the standard model is incomplete. A Grand Unified Theory allowing for the combination of the electroweak interaction with the strong force is held out as a possibility with candidate theories such as supersymmetry proposed to accommodate some of the outstanding unsolved problems in physics. Physicists are still attempting to develop self-consistent unification models that would combine all four fundamental interactions into a theory of everything. Einstein tried and failed at this endeavor, but currently the most popular approach to answering this question is string theory.:212219 Question: In the 19th century, the development of quantum mechanics led to what?
[A]:
False