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.

Ex Input:
Article: Once upon a time the colors of the world started to quarrel. Green said, "Clearly I am the most important. I am the sign of life and hope. I was chosen for grass, trees and leaves. Look over the countryside and you will see that I am in the majority." Blue interrupted, "You only think about the earth, but consider the sky and the sea. It is the water that is the basis of life." Yellow chuckled . "The sun is yellow, as well as the moon and the stars. Every time you look at a sunflower, the whole world starts to smile." Red could bear it no longer. "I am the ruler of all of you. I am blood-life's blood! I am the color of danger and bravery. I bring fire into the blood. I am the color of passion and love." Purple stood at his full height. "I am the color of royalty and power. I am the sign of authority and wisdom. People do not question me! They listen and obey." Finally Indigo spoke with determination, "Think of me and I am the color of silence. I represent thought and reflection. You need me for balance and contrast , for prayer and inner peace." The colors went on boasting , each showing off his or her own advantages. Suddenlythere came a flash of bright lightening. Thunder rolled and boomed. Rain started to pour down. The colors were scared to death. In the midst of the quarrelling, rain began to speak, "You foolish colors. Don't you know that you were each made for a special purpose, unique and different? Join hands with one another and come to me." Doing as they were told, the colors united and joined hands. From then on, when it rains, colors will stretch across the sky in a great bow of color. Whenever a rainbow appears in the sky, let us remember to appreciate one another.
Question: Why did the colors quarrel?
Options: (A) Because they often fought for some reasons. (B) Because they were not liked by each other. (C) Because they all claimed to be the best. (D) Because they all wanted to rule other colors.
Asnwer: C

Ex Output:
Yes

Ex Input:
Article: BEIJING, prefix = st1 /China(CNN) ---China's economic growth dropped to 9 percent for 2008, according to numbers released by the government Thursday --- in line with expectations, but still the slowest rate the nation has seen in seven years. Economists are concerned about what the slowdown means for investment in the future, whether new projects will be undertaken in manufacturing companies and in factories. If not, it will translate into more job losses and erase any optimism about a rebound in 2009. Since 2001, Chinahas been used to double-digit growth as consumers buy Chinese goods. However, the export sector was hit hard in late 2008, with December exports down 2.8 percent. Consumer spending has mostly held up in China, as people there do not carry as much debt as their American counterparts and can continue to spend. Consumer confidence, however, is a problem, said Dong Tao, Asia chief economist for Credit Suisse. Infrastructure is the only thing driving the Chinese economy, Dong said. Tens of thousands of Chinese factories have closed, millions of people are looking for jobs and an untold number of migrants who can't find work may be leaving cities for good because of the slowdown, which would have been unheard of six months ago. Fourth quarter numbers showed growth at 6.8 percent. Goldman Sachs predicted 6.5 percent, down from 9 percent in the third quarter. For all of 2008, Goldman Sachs had predicted 8.8 percent, down from 11.9 percent in 2007.
Question: Since 2001, the slowest rate in annual economic growth china has seen is _ .
Options: (A) 6.8% (B) 8.8% (C) 9 % (D) 11.9 %
Asnwer: A

Ex Output:
No

Ex Input:
Article: An annoying problem for humans, who like to boast about all the distant planets and moons we have explored, is that we've never taken a good look right under our noses. The inside of the earth is relatively close, but how can we get there? The deepest oil well enters a mere six miles into the crust (the center of the earth is about 4,000 miles deeper). Russian scientists dug the deepest hole in Siberia, but bottomed out at about 7.5 miles below the surface. The Mohole project, a U.S. plan in the 1950s, called for drilling a hole 25 miles down to the boundary between the hard rocks of the crust and the soft mantle . Sadly the project involved government supporting. It gets harder and harder to drill deep into the earth because rocks get softer and softer. Hard but easily broken at the surface, rocks become plastic at depth, and the pressure caused by the weight of the overlaying crust --- about 52,800 pounds per square inch at a depth of ten miles, makes further drilling impossible. What little we know about the inside of the earth (like the fact that there's a crust, a mantle, and a core) comes from indirect evidence, such as the analysis of earthquakes. So maybe it's time for a thorough new method to explore the earth's inside. Scientist David Stevenson says we should forget about drilling holes. Instead, we should open a crack . Stevenson suggests digging a crack about a half mile long, a yard wide, and a half mile deep (not with a shovel) but with an explosion on the scale of a nuclear bomb. Next, he'd pour a few hundred thousand tons of molten iron into the crack, along with a robot. The iron, thicker than the surrounding crust, would move downward at about 16 feet per second, carrying the robot with it and opening the crack deeper and deeper. The iron mass would drop for about a week and 2,000 miles to the outer edge of the earth core, the robot sending out data to the surface. Stevenson compares his idea to space exploration. "We're going somewhere we haven't been before,"he says. "In all possibility, there will be surprises." This idea can probably be put in the drawer marked with Isn't Going To Happen. The robot would have to survive temperatures that would melt pretty much anything. But Stevenson's idea may inspire a new look at an old problem. Great things can come from what seems like impossible ideas.
Question: Going inside the earth is _ than going into space.
Options: (A) more interesting (B) more possible (C) easier (D) more challenging
Asnwer: A

Ex Output:
No