Input: California lags far behind comparable states in funding legal services for the poor, a situation so dire that only 28 percent of the civil legal needs of the state's poor and lowerincome residents are being addressed. That figures translates into 2 million people without the ability to access the justice system, according to a new study by the California Commission on Access to Justice, which also found that despite increased spending, the gap between need and services remains substantial. "As a practical matter, in most cases there can be no access to justice without access to legal assistance," said Jack Londen, past commission chair and a partner with Morrison & Foerster in San Francisco. "Whether we like it or not, sometimes landlords illegally evict tenants, children with disabilities are denied proper care, veterans don't get services guaranteed to them, and elderly people need legal assistance to escape the abuse of a caregiver." California has the highest number of people in poverty in the nation - 6.4 million, including nearly one in five children. Half the nation's increase in poverty in the 1990s, when the number of poor jumped 30 percent, occurred in California, and nearly 25 percent of the nation's poverty increase occurred in Los Angeles County alone. Even those with jobs are suffering: 26 percent of California workers earn poverty level wages. The commission's report, "The Path to Equal Justice: A Five-Year Status Report on Access to Justice in California," examined how the legal needs of the state's poor have changed in the last five years as well as both the shortcomings of the justice system and the improvements during that period. Despite increases in state funding to meet the legal needs of the poor, low interest rates (which have reduced the IOLTA fund), high unemployment and the present economic downturn have threatened any gains.

Does the response "New York State" correctly answer the question "Increases in state funding were made in an effort to meet the legal needs of the poor in which state?"?
***
Output: no

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 businesses" correctly answer the question "Why do we clear land?"?
***
Output: yes

Input: Sometimes traits can vary from parent to offspring. These changes are due to mutations. Mutations are a random change. Mutations are natural. Some mutations are harmful. In this case, the organism may not live to reproduce. The trait will not be passed onto offspring. Others variations in traits have no effect on survival. Can some mutations be good for a living thing? Other mutations can have great benefits. Imagine being the first moth that can blend into its background. It would have a better chance of survival. A living thing that survives is likely to have offspring. If it does, it may pass the new trait on to its offspring. Thats good news for the offspring. The offspring may be more likely to survive. Mutations are one way living things adapt to new conditions.

Does the response "Reproduction" correctly answer the question "What are mutations?"?
***
Output: no

Input: On the previous evening,--March 12th,--the monotony of the camp had been unexpectedly disturbed by the arrival, from the direction of Salt Lake City, of a horseman completely exhausted by fatigue and cold, who proved to be no other than Mr. Kane, whose mission to the Mormons by way of California was at that time totally unknown to the army. The next morning he introduced himself to the Governor, was received as his guest, and remained in conference with him throughout the day. What was the character of their communication is unknown, except by inference from its results. When presented to Judge Eckels, on the following day, Mr. Kane exhibited to him the letters he bore from the President, and other letters, also, from Brigham Young, accrediting him as a negotiator in the existing difficulties. To General Johnston he showed nothing; nor did the Governor, to the knowledge of the camp, acquaint either that officer or any other person with the purport of his business. It was evident to everybody, however, that the Mormon leaders, conscious of their inability to resist the force by which they would be assailed so soon as the snow should melt upon the mountains, were engaged in an effort, of which Mr. Kane was the agent, to secure through the Governor, if possible, indemnity for their past offences, in consideration of acknowledgment of his authority.

Does the response "Judge Eckels" correctly answer the question "What person was aware of Mr. Kane's purpose for arrival in town?"?
***
Output:
yes