Input: As Philip marched south, his opponents blocked him near Chaeronea, Boeotia. During the ensuing Battle of Chaeronea, Philip commanded the right wing and Alexander the left, accompanied by a group of Philip's trusted generals. According to the ancient sources, the two sides fought bitterly for some time. Philip deliberately commanded his troops to retreat, counting on the untested Athenian hoplites to follow, thus breaking their line. Alexander was the first to break the Theban lines, followed by Philip's generals. Having damaged the enemy's cohesion, Philip ordered his troops to press forward and quickly routed them. With the Athenians lost, the Thebans were surrounded. Left to fight alone, they were defeated. After the victory at Chaeronea, Philip and Alexander marched unopposed into the Peloponnese, welcomed by all cities; however, when they reached Sparta, they were refused, but did not resort to war. At Corinth, Philip established a "Hellenic Alliance" (modeled on the old anti-Persian alliance of the Greco-Persian Wars), which included most Greek city-states except Sparta. Philip was then named Hegemon (often translated as "Supreme Commander") of this league (known by modern scholars as the League of Corinth), and announced his plans to attack the Persian Empire.

Does the response "Officials" correctly answer the question "Who did Philip's troops quickly route?"?

OPTIONS:
- no
- yes
***
Output: no

Input: Lash is associate dean at the University of Southern California Law School. Johnson is a justice on California's Second District Court of Appeal. Lash and Johnson are co-chairs of the California Commission on Access to Justice. The full report can be viewed at (www.calbar.org). In her year-long odyssey through the California justice system, Katherine, a 35-year-old single mother with three children, experienced failure at every turn. Leaving her abusive husband, she moved into the only apartment she could afford, and soon discovered a broken toilet and non- working oven, rats and roaches, and a fourthfloor landing with no railing. She began withholding rent pending repairs her landlord refused to make, but then her Medi-Cal benefits were cut off when she could not provide rent receipts. She lost health care for her children and herself, although she is a borderline diabetic in need of medication and her children were suffering from rat bites. Katherine tried to seek help through the courts. Representing herself at an administrative hearing, she lost her appeal to restore Medi-Cal benefits because she did not have proper documentation of the rent account. When she went to a courthouse to file a complaint against her landlord, she found the process so confusing that she gave up and went home. According to "The Path to Justice: A Five-Year Status Report on Access to Justice in California," prepared by the California Commission on Access to Justice, Katherine is just one of 4.6 million poor Californians whose basic civil legal needs -- often involving such critical needs as housing, health care, education, employment, safety and transportation -- are not being addressed. California has a critical dearth of legal services for the poor, and, as this report makes clear, it is imperative that the state join with the federal government and private funders to increase resources so that all Californians, regardless of income, have equal access to our justice system. Our justice system is predicated on the assumption that both parties will be represented by lawyers who act as gatekeepers and guides through a complex legal system that would otherwise be inaccessible to many of us. Unfortunately, the most vulnerable members of our society are the least able to afford legal services. California does have a strong network of legal aid organizations that try to help meet the needs of the poor, but there's just one legal aid lawyer available per 10,000 poor people. We may promise "justice for all," but for those who can't afford a lawyer, that promise is often a lie. In its new report, the Commission on Access to Justice notes some significant steps toward providing equal access to justice for all Californians.

Does the response "She didn't know the case" correctly answer the question "Why was Katherine unsuccessful in representing herself?"?

OPTIONS:
- no
- yes
***
Output: no

Input: The Washington Supreme Court is asking the Legislature to approve a $90 surcharge on a court filing fee to help provide legal help for the poor in civil cases, Chief Justice Gerry Alexander said Wednesday. "Some might say, why should we support this when we face tough financial times?" Alexander asked in his State of the Judiciary address to a joint session of the Legislature. "It seems to me in America, where we rejoice in the fact that we are a nation devoted to the rule of law, we should not ration access to justice." The recommendation comes from the court's Task Force on Civil Equal Justice Funding, created in 2001 to look for ways to cope with the sparse amount of money available for such cases. As the task force was studying the issue, $900,000 was cut from state support for civil equal justice services. That prompted the state's two main legal services providers - Columbia Legal Services and Northwest Justice Project - to cut their staffs, Alexander said. The change would increase the cost of filing a lawsuit in Superior Court to $200. The total fee would be split, with 54 percent going to counties and 46 percent going to the state for a newly created equal justice account. Alexander also requested money for five additional Superior Court judgeships and one additional District Court judgeships, arguing that increased caseloads require more judges. Two of the Superior Court judges and the District Court judge would be in Clark County, with one Superior Court judge added in the joint district that serves Benton and Franklin counties and one each in Kittitas and Kitsap counties.

Does the response "No Ration access to Justice" correctly answer the question "What did Gerry Alexander ask in his State of the Judiciary address to a joint session of the Legislature?"?

OPTIONS:
- no
- yes
***
Output: yes

Input: When land is cleared, habitats are lost. It may be cleared for agriculture. It may also be used for building new homes or businesses. Within the past 100 years, the amount of land used for agriculture has almost doubled. Land used for grazing cattle has more than doubled. Many wetlands have also been lost to agriculture. The U.S. has lost almost all the natural tall-grass prairies. Thee areas of tall thick grass have virtually disappeared. These areas of land had thick fertile soil. Their grasses had very deep root systems. These deep and thick roots reduced the amount of soil erosion. They also were home to many plants and animals. Prairies were wonderful places. They were home to colorful flowers, prairie dogs, and herds of bison.

Does the response "For new homes" correctly answer the question "Why do we clear land?"?

OPTIONS:
- no
- yes
***
Output:
yes