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.

[Q]: Article: "A very disruptive six-year-old child kicked my legs and clawed at my hand," said one teacher. " I broke up a fight and was kicked between my legs," said another. Many people have heard stories like this. But the situation is more worrying still and it involves parents. Every child, regardless of the circumstances into which they are born, has the right to achieve their potential, regardless of their parents' wealth and class. And we recognize that, as a nation, it is a long way to achieve this goal. But with rights come responsibilities and what worries people is that we are in danger of ignoring the latter. Far too many children are behaving badly at school, even to the point of being violent to staff. This is terrible enough, but it is hard to be surprised since many children are just mirroring the behaviour of their parents. My members tell me that parents also come into school often and threaten staff and some staff have been attacked by a pupil's parents. One father encouraged his child to start a fight on the playground before school started. A primary teacher reported that a parent shouted at him. We need to have a serious and sensible debate about the roles and responsibilities of parents and the support that they can reasonably expect of schools and teachers. Children will not learn how to behave as social beings if they are stuck in front of the TV for hours every day. They need their parents to show an interest in them and to spend time with them, helping them to play with their peers and to learn the rules of social behavior. Children are now arriving at school socially undeveloped, increasingly unable to dress themselves, unable to use the toilet properly, unable to hold a knife and fork and unused to eating at a table, Mary Bousted, general secretary of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, writes in today's Observer. Instead of taking responsibility themselves, too many parents expect teachers to control their children's behaviour and wellbeing, she adds. Bousted says one mother blamed staff when she discovered that her 16-year-old son was smoking. We are in danger of becoming a nation of _ . The bedroom, once a place to sleep, has become the living space for the young. Spending hours in front of computer screens, on social networking sites or being immersed in computer games, children and young people spend little time with their parents. Parents are unable to monitor just what their children are watching. Schools cannot right the wrongs of society and teachers cannot become substitute parents. Both parties need to work together. Parents must be helped and given confidence to take back control. They are responsible for setting boundaries for their children's behaviour and sticking to those boundaries. They are responsible for setting a good example to their children and for devoting that most precious of resources -- time -- so that children come to school ready and willing to learn.
Question: In the opinion of the writer, what problem do people ignore?
Options: (A) The violence in the school (B) The study pressure of students. (C) The responsibilities of the students (D) The right to achieve students' potential.
Asnwer: C
[A]: Yes

[Q]: Article: Ban Fur? Then Why Not Leather? Much to the displeasure of some local businesses, the City Council in West Hollywood, California, voted without opposition last week to ban the sale of fur products. Should laws be involved in this issue? Is it unfair to ban sales of fur, but not sales of leather and hides ? Animals Do Not Have Rights By Tibor R. Machan My view is that animals do not have basic rights. It is a matter of ethics and not of the laws of human societies. If animals had such rights as human beings do, they would have to be held responsible for killing fellow animals in the wild. That way of thinking about animals makes a category mistake. Using animals, including their fur or organs, to improve people's lives is acceptable. A Small Step Against Cruelty By Kate Carter Both fur and leather are the skins of dead animals. Why should we think that the lovable furry ones deserve more of a life than the less pleasing ones? Some say leather is less cruel because it's a byproduct of the meat industry. But this isn't really true. Some cheap leather may be a byproduct of the meat industry, but often it's the other way round. In South Africa, where there is a developing market for ostrich farms, the skins account for roughly 80 percent of the slaughtered birds' value, a mere 20 percent of which comes from the meat. "Who" Are You Wearing? By Marc Bekoff West Hollywood's ban is a move in the right direction. However, we must work to ban the sales of leather and hides, too. Furs come from animals who are attacked to become clothing, while some leather and hides come from slaughterhouse animals. We must remember that when people choose to wear fur, leather and hides, they are wearing formering conscious beings. So it's a matter of who they are wearing, not what they are wearing because these animals must be referred to as who and not what or that.
Question: What is the passage mainly about?
Options: (A) West Hollywood's ban on fur products. (B) Differences between fur and leather sales. (C) The government's role in protecting animals. (D) The ecological imbalance in West Hollywood.
Asnwer: B
[A]: No

[Q]: Article: Offering a powerful new tool against terrorism, researchers have found a way to detect lies in the liar's blushing face. The technique, described in the journal Nature, uses a thermal camera to detect the sudden shift of blood flow in the face. The system performed as a traditional polygraph , the scientists report. Pushed by technological advances and with fresh interest since Sept.11, the discovery is part of the development in the scientific study of detection. Although the lie remains a mysterious phenomenon, researchers in recent years have found a number of new methods that might take the place of the polygraph, from brain scans, to slight changes in eye movement, to sparks of electrical activity that signal a person has seen a victim or a crime scene before. The new finding says, when a person tells a lie, there is a sudden change of blood to the area around the eyes. Although the change is not ordinary visible, the blood warms the skin, causing bands of color1 to appear through a camera sensitive to heat. One advantage of the camera can provide answers quickly, and doesn't require a highly trained expert to operate it or explain its results. In theory, this new technology could be used anywhere large numbers of people need to be quickly screened. But some scientists say the technology would need to be improved before it is ready for use, for it is possible that there are other reactions that cause a sudden change in blood flow in the face and there is also the danger that people will learn to fool the machine, the same way they try to fool polygraph examiners by controlling their breathing or taking drugs to relax themselves.
Question: Compared with a traditional polygraph, the new tool's progress lies in the fact that _ .
Options: (A) it is moveable (B) it is easier to operate (C) it gives correct conclusion (D) it can only be used in public places.
Asnwer: B
[A]:
Yes