Input: Have you ever looked closely at a globe? That continents look like a giant jig-saw puzzle. North America looks like it could fit next to Europe. The edge of South America matches Africa. Scientists noticed these same features. It caused them to start asking questions. They wanted to know if these continents were was connected? If so, how can something so large move so far? What could possibly have enough force to move such a giant slab of rock? Is there other evidence that can provide clues to the past positions of continents? How can answering these questions help us? A scientist named Alfred Wegener had these same questions. Wegener look at rocks on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean. He noticed they were the same type and age. He thought that the rocks must have formed side by side. He proposed that the rocks then drifted apart. One part went with North America. The other part stayed with Europe.
"Why does Wegener propose the continents look like a giant jigsaw puzzle?" is "Move continents"?

OPTIONS:
- no
- yes
Output: no
Input: 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.
"How did Europeans' and Americans' attitudes toward amassing wealth differ?" is "Europeans had no interest in it, while Americans desired it"?

OPTIONS:
- no
- yes
Output: yes
Input: On a busy Friday morning in Manhattan, nine pedestrians suffered bullet or fragment wounds after police unleashed a hail of gunfire at a man wielding a .45 caliber pistol who had just killed a former co-worker. The officers unloaded 16 rounds in the shadow of the Empire State Building at a disgruntled former apparel designer, killing him after he engaged in a gunbattle with police, authorities said. Three passersby sustained direct gunshot wounds, while the remaining six were hit by fragments, according to New York Police Commissioner Ray Kelly. All injuries were caused by police, he said Saturday. One officer shot nine rounds and another shot seven. Police identified the gunman as Jeffrey Johnson, 58, who was apparently laid off from his job as a designer of women's accessories at Hazan Import Co. last year. Johnson, who served in the U.S. Coast Guard in the mid-1970s, had two rounds left in his pistol. It holds eight, Kelly said. Police identified the slain co-worker as Steven Ercolino, 41, who had apparently filed a prior complaint against his assailant, claiming that he thought Johnson would eventually try to kill him. Both men had filed harassment complaints against each other in April 2011, Kelly added. Ercolino was listed as a vice president of sales at Hazan Import Corp., according to his LinkedIn profile. "It's not something that should happen to a loving person like that," said his brother, Paul. "He's going to be so missed by everybody. He was a light of so many lives."
"Who shot Jeffrey Johnson?" is "Steven Eroclino"?

OPTIONS:
- no
- yes
Output:
no