Given the document below, determine if the summary is factually consistent with the document. A summary is factually consistent if no facts in the summary reflect the negation of a fact in the document.

Document: NAME_1 admitted buying the bogus PhD from a fictitious online university - Brooklyn Park in the US - which sold fake qualifications from Pakistan. He was caught when the National League for Democracy party, which is forming the new government, made his CV public. It remains to be seen if NAME_1 remains on the list of cabinet ministers to take office next week. A party spokesman told the BBC that the fake degree did not matter. Confronted by the Myanmar Times newspaper, NAME_1 admitted the degree was fake. "I am not going to call myself 'Dr' any more, as I know now that it is a fake university. The PhD on my CV is not a real qualification," he told the newspaper. A BBC check found the title still on his LinkedIn page, reports the BBC's NAME_2. NAME_1 wrote a number of articles on economics

Summary: 1. Confronted by NAME_1 newspaper, NAME_3 admitted the degree was fake.

Is the summary factually consistent with the document with respect to facts?
Options: "Yes" or "No"

Answer:


 Avoid using the following keywords: linkedin, page, cv, democracy
user