Datasets:

Neuronovo

/

neuronovo-utc-data-glue-mnli

like 0

Instruction: Is the hypothesis unrelated or neutral to the premise? Premise: Conceptually cream skimming has two basic dimensions - product and geography. Hypothesis: Product and geography are what make cream skimming work.

Conceptually cream skimming has two basic dimensions - product and geography.###Product and geography are what make cream skimming work.

Does accepting 'Conceptually cream skimming has two basic dimensions - product and geography.' as true logically compel one to accept 'Product and geography are what make cream skimming work. '

Conceptually cream skimming has two basic dimensions - product and geography.###Product and geography are what make cream skimming work.

Does the hypothesis 'Conceptually cream skimming has two basic dimensions - product and geography.' logically conflict with the premise 'Product and geography are what make cream skimming work. '

Conceptually cream skimming has two basic dimensions - product and geography.###Product and geography are what make cream skimming work.

Is the premise sufficiently strong to logically lead to the hypothesis? Premise: you know during the season and i guess at at your level uh you lose them to the next level if if they decide to recall the the parent team the Braves decide to call to recall a guy from triple A then a double A guy goes up to replace him and a single A guy goes up to replace him Hypothesis: You lose the things to the following level if the people recall.

you know during the season and i guess at at your level uh you lose them to the next level if if they decide to recall the the parent team the Braves decide to call to recall a guy from triple A then a double A guy goes up to replace him and a single A guy goes up to replace him###You lose the things to the following level if the people recall.

Is there no direct logical correlation between 'you know during the season and i guess at at your level uh you lose them to the next level if if they decide to recall the the parent team the Braves decide to call to recall a guy from triple A then a double A guy goes up to replace him and a single A guy goes up to replace him' and 'You lose the things to the following level if the people recall.', indicating neutrality?

you know during the season and i guess at at your level uh you lose them to the next level if if they decide to recall the the parent team the Braves decide to call to recall a guy from triple A then a double A guy goes up to replace him and a single A guy goes up to replace him###You lose the things to the following level if the people recall.

Given the premise, is the hypothesis presenting a conflicting viewpoint? Premise: you know during the season and i guess at at your level uh you lose them to the next level if if they decide to recall the the parent team the Braves decide to call to recall a guy from triple A then a double A guy goes up to replace him and a single A guy goes up to replace him Hypothesis: You lose the things to the following level if the people recall.

you know during the season and i guess at at your level uh you lose them to the next level if if they decide to recall the the parent team the Braves decide to call to recall a guy from triple A then a double A guy goes up to replace him and a single A guy goes up to replace him###You lose the things to the following level if the people recall.

Given the context of 'One of our number will carry out your instructions minutely.', does 'A member of my team will execute your orders with immense precision.' emerge logically?

One of our number will carry out your instructions minutely.###A member of my team will execute your orders with immense precision.

Evaluate if the hypothesis neither contradicts nor follows from the premise. Premise: One of our number will carry out your instructions minutely. Hypothesis: A member of my team will execute your orders with immense precision.

One of our number will carry out your instructions minutely.###A member of my team will execute your orders with immense precision.

Is 'One of our number will carry out your instructions minutely.' a clear rebuttal of the premise 'A member of my team will execute your orders with immense precision.'

One of our number will carry out your instructions minutely.###A member of my team will execute your orders with immense precision.

Instruction: Does the hypothesis follow logically from the premise? Premise: How do you know? All this is their information again. Hypothesis: This information belongs to them.

How do you know? All this is their information again.###This information belongs to them.

Evaluate if the hypothesis neither contradicts nor follows from the premise. Premise: How do you know? All this is their information again. Hypothesis: This information belongs to them.

How do you know? All this is their information again.###This information belongs to them.

Is there a clear contradiction between 'How do you know? All this is their information again.' and 'This information belongs to them.'

How do you know? All this is their information again.###This information belongs to them.

Given 'yeah i tell you what though if you go price some of those tennis shoes i can see why now you know they're getting up in the hundred dollar range', can 'The tennis shoes have a range of prices.' be seen as maintaining a distinct, neutral position?

yeah i tell you what though if you go price some of those tennis shoes i can see why now you know they're getting up in the hundred dollar range###The tennis shoes have a range of prices.

Instruction: Does the hypothesis follow logically from the premise? Premise: yeah i tell you what though if you go price some of those tennis shoes i can see why now you know they're getting up in the hundred dollar range Hypothesis: The tennis shoes have a range of prices.

yeah i tell you what though if you go price some of those tennis shoes i can see why now you know they're getting up in the hundred dollar range###The tennis shoes have a range of prices.

Given 'yeah i tell you what though if you go price some of those tennis shoes i can see why now you know they're getting up in the hundred dollar range', is 'The tennis shoes have a range of prices.' its antithesis?

yeah i tell you what though if you go price some of those tennis shoes i can see why now you know they're getting up in the hundred dollar range###The tennis shoes have a range of prices.

Starting from 'my walkman broke so i'm upset now i just have to turn the stereo up real loud', does it naturally lead to the conclusion 'I'm upset that my walkman broke and now I have to turn the stereo up really loud.'

my walkman broke so i'm upset now i just have to turn the stereo up real loud###I'm upset that my walkman broke and now I have to turn the stereo up really loud.

Considering the premise 'my walkman broke so i'm upset now i just have to turn the stereo up real loud', is 'I'm upset that my walkman broke and now I have to turn the stereo up really loud.' a statement that stands on its own?

my walkman broke so i'm upset now i just have to turn the stereo up real loud###I'm upset that my walkman broke and now I have to turn the stereo up really loud.

Given 'my walkman broke so i'm upset now i just have to turn the stereo up real loud', is 'I'm upset that my walkman broke and now I have to turn the stereo up really loud.' its antithesis?

my walkman broke so i'm upset now i just have to turn the stereo up real loud###I'm upset that my walkman broke and now I have to turn the stereo up really loud.

In the context of 'But a few Christian mosaics survive above the apse is the Virgin with the infant Jesus, with the Archangel Gabriel to the right (his companion Michael, to the left, has vanished save for a few feathers from his wings).', does 'Most of the Christian mosaics were destroyed by Muslims. ' stand alone without direct association?

But a few Christian mosaics survive above the apse is the Virgin with the infant Jesus, with the Archangel Gabriel to the right (his companion Michael, to the left, has vanished save for a few feathers from his wings).###Most of the Christian mosaics were destroyed by Muslims.

Taking 'But a few Christian mosaics survive above the apse is the Virgin with the infant Jesus, with the Archangel Gabriel to the right (his companion Michael, to the left, has vanished save for a few feathers from his wings).' as a given, does it logically imply 'Most of the Christian mosaics were destroyed by Muslims. '

But a few Christian mosaics survive above the apse is the Virgin with the infant Jesus, with the Archangel Gabriel to the right (his companion Michael, to the left, has vanished save for a few feathers from his wings).###Most of the Christian mosaics were destroyed by Muslims.

Does the hypothesis 'But a few Christian mosaics survive above the apse is the Virgin with the infant Jesus, with the Archangel Gabriel to the right (his companion Michael, to the left, has vanished save for a few feathers from his wings).' logically conflict with the premise 'Most of the Christian mosaics were destroyed by Muslims. '

But a few Christian mosaics survive above the apse is the Virgin with the infant Jesus, with the Archangel Gabriel to the right (his companion Michael, to the left, has vanished save for a few feathers from his wings).###Most of the Christian mosaics were destroyed by Muslims.

Instruction: Does the hypothesis follow logically from the premise? Premise: (Read for Slate 's take on Jackson's findings.) Hypothesis: Slate had an opinion on Jackson's findings.

(Read for Slate 's take on Jackson's findings.)###Slate had an opinion on Jackson's findings.

From '(Read for Slate 's take on Jackson's findings.)', can we conclude that 'Slate had an opinion on Jackson's findings.' is unrelated and maintains neutrality?

(Read for Slate 's take on Jackson's findings.)###Slate had an opinion on Jackson's findings.

Does '(Read for Slate 's take on Jackson's findings.)' challenge or dispute the premise 'Slate had an opinion on Jackson's findings.'

(Read for Slate 's take on Jackson's findings.)###Slate had an opinion on Jackson's findings.

Does the hypothesis 'Gays and lesbians.' logically conflict with the premise 'Heterosexuals.'

Gays and lesbians.###Heterosexuals.

Is the premise sufficiently strong to logically lead to the hypothesis? Premise: Gays and lesbians. Hypothesis: Heterosexuals.

Gays and lesbians.###Heterosexuals.

Does 'Gays and lesbians.' stand independently of the premise 'Heterosexuals.', neither following nor contradicting it?

Gays and lesbians.###Heterosexuals.

Does 'I burst through a set of cabin doors, and fell to the ground-' logically set the stage for the hypothesis 'I burst through the doors and fell down.'

I burst through a set of cabin doors, and fell to the ground-###I burst through the doors and fell down.

With the premise 'I burst through a set of cabin doors, and fell to the ground-', is 'I burst through the doors and fell down.' simply an unrelated statement?

I burst through a set of cabin doors, and fell to the ground-###I burst through the doors and fell down.

Does 'I burst through a set of cabin doors, and fell to the ground-' provide a contradiction to the established premise 'I burst through the doors and fell down.'

I burst through a set of cabin doors, and fell to the ground-###I burst through the doors and fell down.

Consider the premise. Does the hypothesis directly oppose it? Premise: Fun for adults and children. Hypothesis: Fun for only children.

Fun for adults and children.###Fun for only children.

Does accepting 'Fun for adults and children.' as true logically compel one to accept 'Fun for only children.'

Fun for adults and children.###Fun for only children.

In the context of 'Fun for adults and children.', does 'Fun for only children.' stand alone without direct association?

Fun for adults and children.###Fun for only children.

Is there a neutral relationship between 'It's not that the questions they asked weren't interesting or legitimate (though most did fall under the category of already asked and answered).' and 'All of the questions were interesting according to a focus group consulted on the subject.', lacking direct logical ties?

It's not that the questions they asked weren't interesting or legitimate (though most did fall under the category of already asked and answered).###All of the questions were interesting according to a focus group consulted on the subject.

Analyze if the hypothesis is a logical continuation of the premise. Premise: It's not that the questions they asked weren't interesting or legitimate (though most did fall under the category of already asked and answered). Hypothesis: All of the questions were interesting according to a focus group consulted on the subject.

It's not that the questions they asked weren't interesting or legitimate (though most did fall under the category of already asked and answered).###All of the questions were interesting according to a focus group consulted on the subject.

Given 'It's not that the questions they asked weren't interesting or legitimate (though most did fall under the category of already asked and answered).', is 'All of the questions were interesting according to a focus group consulted on the subject.' its antithesis?

It's not that the questions they asked weren't interesting or legitimate (though most did fall under the category of already asked and answered).###All of the questions were interesting according to a focus group consulted on the subject.

Does 'Thebes held onto power until the 12th Dynasty, when its first king, Amenemhet Iwho reigned between 1980 1951 b.c. established a capital near Memphis.' exist in a separate context from 'The capital near Memphis lasted only half a century before its inhabitants abandoned it for the next capital. ', without logical interdependence?

Thebes held onto power until the 12th Dynasty, when its first king, Amenemhet Iwho reigned between 1980 1951 b.c. established a capital near Memphis.###The capital near Memphis lasted only half a century before its inhabitants abandoned it for the next capital.

Does the foundation laid by 'Thebes held onto power until the 12th Dynasty, when its first king, Amenemhet Iwho reigned between 1980 1951 b.c. established a capital near Memphis.' logically support 'The capital near Memphis lasted only half a century before its inhabitants abandoned it for the next capital. '

Thebes held onto power until the 12th Dynasty, when its first king, Amenemhet Iwho reigned between 1980 1951 b.c. established a capital near Memphis.###The capital near Memphis lasted only half a century before its inhabitants abandoned it for the next capital.

Considering 'Thebes held onto power until the 12th Dynasty, when its first king, Amenemhet Iwho reigned between 1980 1951 b.c. established a capital near Memphis.', is 'The capital near Memphis lasted only half a century before its inhabitants abandoned it for the next capital. ' a statement that refutes it?

Thebes held onto power until the 12th Dynasty, when its first king, Amenemhet Iwho reigned between 1980 1951 b.c. established a capital near Memphis.###The capital near Memphis lasted only half a century before its inhabitants abandoned it for the next capital.

Does 'I don't mean to be glib about your concerns, but if I were you, I might be more concerned about the near-term rate implications of this $1.' challenge or dispute the premise 'I am concerned more about your issues than the near-term rate implications.'

I don't mean to be glib about your concerns, but if I were you, I might be more concerned about the near-term rate implications of this $1.###I am concerned more about your issues than the near-term rate implications.

Analyze if the hypothesis is a logical continuation of the premise. Premise: I don't mean to be glib about your concerns, but if I were you, I might be more concerned about the near-term rate implications of this $1. Hypothesis: I am concerned more about your issues than the near-term rate implications.

I don't mean to be glib about your concerns, but if I were you, I might be more concerned about the near-term rate implications of this $1.###I am concerned more about your issues than the near-term rate implications.

Consider the premise. Does the hypothesis stand independently without contradicting or following it? Premise: I don't mean to be glib about your concerns, but if I were you, I might be more concerned about the near-term rate implications of this $1. Hypothesis: I am concerned more about your issues than the near-term rate implications.

I don't mean to be glib about your concerns, but if I were you, I might be more concerned about the near-term rate implications of this $1.###I am concerned more about your issues than the near-term rate implications.

With the premise 'Issues in Data Synthesis.', is 'Problems in data synthesis.' a logical derivative?

Issues in Data Synthesis.###Problems in data synthesis.

Can 'Issues in Data Synthesis.' be viewed as neither a logical extension nor a contradiction of 'Problems in data synthesis.'

Issues in Data Synthesis.###Problems in data synthesis.

Analyze if the hypothesis is in clear contradiction to the premise. Premise: Issues in Data Synthesis. Hypothesis: Problems in data synthesis.

Issues in Data Synthesis.###Problems in data synthesis.

Given the premise, is the hypothesis an unavoidable conclusion? Premise: well you see that on television also Hypothesis: You can see that on television, as well.

well you see that on television also###You can see that on television, as well.

Is there a neutral relationship between 'well you see that on television also' and 'You can see that on television, as well.', lacking direct logical ties?

well you see that on television also###You can see that on television, as well.

Does the hypothesis 'well you see that on television also' logically conflict with the premise 'You can see that on television, as well.'

well you see that on television also###You can see that on television, as well.

Considering 'Vrenna and I both fought him and he nearly took us.', is 'Neither Vrenna nor myself have ever fought him.' a statement that refutes it?

Vrenna and I both fought him and he nearly took us.###Neither Vrenna nor myself have ever fought him.

Based on the premise 'Vrenna and I both fought him and he nearly took us.', does it logically lead to the hypothesis 'Neither Vrenna nor myself have ever fought him.'

Vrenna and I both fought him and he nearly took us.###Neither Vrenna nor myself have ever fought him.

With the premise 'Vrenna and I both fought him and he nearly took us.', is 'Neither Vrenna nor myself have ever fought him.' simply an unrelated statement?

Vrenna and I both fought him and he nearly took us.###Neither Vrenna nor myself have ever fought him.

Given the assertion 'This analysis pooled estimates from these two studies to develop a C-R function linking PM to chronic bronchitis.', does 'The analysis proves that there is no link between PM and bronchitis.' offer a contrary position?

This analysis pooled estimates from these two studies to develop a C-R function linking PM to chronic bronchitis.###The analysis proves that there is no link between PM and bronchitis.

Given 'This analysis pooled estimates from these two studies to develop a C-R function linking PM to chronic bronchitis.', would 'The analysis proves that there is no link between PM and bronchitis.' be a logical outcome?

This analysis pooled estimates from these two studies to develop a C-R function linking PM to chronic bronchitis.###The analysis proves that there is no link between PM and bronchitis.

Considering the premise 'This analysis pooled estimates from these two studies to develop a C-R function linking PM to chronic bronchitis.', is 'The analysis proves that there is no link between PM and bronchitis.' a statement that stands on its own?

This analysis pooled estimates from these two studies to develop a C-R function linking PM to chronic bronchitis.###The analysis proves that there is no link between PM and bronchitis.

Does 'He turned and smiled at Vrenna.' exist in a separate context from 'He smiled at Vrenna who was walking slowly behind him with her mother.', without logical interdependence?

He turned and smiled at Vrenna.###He smiled at Vrenna who was walking slowly behind him with her mother.

Analyze if the hypothesis is a logical continuation of the premise. Premise: He turned and smiled at Vrenna. Hypothesis: He smiled at Vrenna who was walking slowly behind him with her mother.

He turned and smiled at Vrenna.###He smiled at Vrenna who was walking slowly behind him with her mother.

Does 'He turned and smiled at Vrenna.' provide a contradiction to the established premise 'He smiled at Vrenna who was walking slowly behind him with her mother.'

He turned and smiled at Vrenna.###He smiled at Vrenna who was walking slowly behind him with her mother.

Given the context of 'We sought to identify practices that were commonly implemented by the agencies within the past 5 years.', does 'We want to identify practices commonly used by agencies in the last 5 years' emerge logically?

We sought to identify practices that were commonly implemented by the agencies within the past 5 years.###We want to identify practices commonly used by agencies in the last 5 years

Is there no direct logical correlation between 'We sought to identify practices that were commonly implemented by the agencies within the past 5 years.' and 'We want to identify practices commonly used by agencies in the last 5 years', indicating neutrality?

We sought to identify practices that were commonly implemented by the agencies within the past 5 years.###We want to identify practices commonly used by agencies in the last 5 years

Given 'We sought to identify practices that were commonly implemented by the agencies within the past 5 years.', does 'We want to identify practices commonly used by agencies in the last 5 years' present an opposing view?

We sought to identify practices that were commonly implemented by the agencies within the past 5 years.###We want to identify practices commonly used by agencies in the last 5 years

Considering 'The other men shuffled.', can one logically arrive at 'The other men were shuffled around.'

The other men shuffled.###The other men were shuffled around.

Given 'The other men shuffled.', does 'The other men were shuffled around.' exist in a neutral realm, neither confirming nor denying the premise?

The other men shuffled.###The other men were shuffled around.

In response to 'The other men shuffled.', does 'The other men were shuffled around.' serve as a counterstatement?

The other men shuffled.###The other men were shuffled around.

Given 'States must show reasonable progress in their state implementation plans toward the congressionally mandated goal of returning to natural conditions in national parks and wilderness areas.', does 'Itis not necessary for there to be any improvement.' present an opposing view?

States must show reasonable progress in their state implementation plans toward the congressionally mandated goal of returning to natural conditions in national parks and wilderness areas.###Itis not necessary for there to be any improvement.

Does the narrative of 'States must show reasonable progress in their state implementation plans toward the congressionally mandated goal of returning to natural conditions in national parks and wilderness areas.' logically evolve into 'Itis not necessary for there to be any improvement.'

States must show reasonable progress in their state implementation plans toward the congressionally mandated goal of returning to natural conditions in national parks and wilderness areas.###Itis not necessary for there to be any improvement.

Does 'States must show reasonable progress in their state implementation plans toward the congressionally mandated goal of returning to natural conditions in national parks and wilderness areas.' hold a position of neutrality in relation to 'Itis not necessary for there to be any improvement.'

States must show reasonable progress in their state implementation plans toward the congressionally mandated goal of returning to natural conditions in national parks and wilderness areas.###Itis not necessary for there to be any improvement.

With the premise 'well it's been very interesting', is 'It has been very intriguing.' a logical derivative?

well it's been very interesting###It has been very intriguing.

Consider the premise. Does the hypothesis stand independently without contradicting or following it? Premise: well it's been very interesting Hypothesis: It has been very intriguing.

well it's been very interesting###It has been very intriguing.

Given 'well it's been very interesting', does 'It has been very intriguing.' present an opposing view?

well it's been very interesting###It has been very intriguing.

With the premise 'He started slowly back to the bunkhouse.', is 'He returned slowly to the bunkhouse.' a reasonable conclusion?

He started slowly back to the bunkhouse.###He returned slowly to the bunkhouse.

Is there a neutral relationship between 'He started slowly back to the bunkhouse.' and 'He returned slowly to the bunkhouse.', lacking direct logical ties?

He started slowly back to the bunkhouse.###He returned slowly to the bunkhouse.

Does the hypothesis 'He started slowly back to the bunkhouse.' logically conflict with the premise 'He returned slowly to the bunkhouse.'

He started slowly back to the bunkhouse.###He returned slowly to the bunkhouse.

Does the connection between 'and it's it's quite a bit i think six something is the state and and uh the rest of the pie goes elsewhere but we're in a particular part of the state that's pretty well off so it's it's like we get a lot of that back as far as local taxation goes' and 'I do not know exactly where the local taxes go.' lack any definitive logical relationship?

and it's it's quite a bit i think six something is the state and and uh the rest of the pie goes elsewhere but we're in a particular part of the state that's pretty well off so it's it's like we get a lot of that back as far as local taxation goes###I do not know exactly where the local taxes go.

If 'and it's it's quite a bit i think six something is the state and and uh the rest of the pie goes elsewhere but we're in a particular part of the state that's pretty well off so it's it's like we get a lot of that back as far as local taxation goes' is true, does it logically mean that 'I do not know exactly where the local taxes go.' also is?

and it's it's quite a bit i think six something is the state and and uh the rest of the pie goes elsewhere but we're in a particular part of the state that's pretty well off so it's it's like we get a lot of that back as far as local taxation goes###I do not know exactly where the local taxes go.

Is 'and it's it's quite a bit i think six something is the state and and uh the rest of the pie goes elsewhere but we're in a particular part of the state that's pretty well off so it's it's like we get a lot of that back as far as local taxation goes' in direct disagreement with the statement 'I do not know exactly where the local taxes go.'

and it's it's quite a bit i think six something is the state and and uh the rest of the pie goes elsewhere but we're in a particular part of the state that's pretty well off so it's it's like we get a lot of that back as far as local taxation goes###I do not know exactly where the local taxes go.

Is there a fundamental disagreement between 'They're made from a secret recipe handed down to the present-day villagers by their Mallorcan ancestors, who came here in the early 17th century as part of an official repopulation scheme.' and 'The recipe passed down from Mallorcan ancestors is known to everyone.'

They're made from a secret recipe handed down to the present-day villagers by their Mallorcan ancestors, who came here in the early 17th century as part of an official repopulation scheme.###The recipe passed down from Mallorcan ancestors is known to everyone.

Considering 'They're made from a secret recipe handed down to the present-day villagers by their Mallorcan ancestors, who came here in the early 17th century as part of an official repopulation scheme.', can one logically arrive at 'The recipe passed down from Mallorcan ancestors is known to everyone.'

They're made from a secret recipe handed down to the present-day villagers by their Mallorcan ancestors, who came here in the early 17th century as part of an official repopulation scheme.###The recipe passed down from Mallorcan ancestors is known to everyone.

Does 'They're made from a secret recipe handed down to the present-day villagers by their Mallorcan ancestors, who came here in the early 17th century as part of an official repopulation scheme.' exist in a separate context from 'The recipe passed down from Mallorcan ancestors is known to everyone.', without logical interdependence?

They're made from a secret recipe handed down to the present-day villagers by their Mallorcan ancestors, who came here in the early 17th century as part of an official repopulation scheme.###The recipe passed down from Mallorcan ancestors is known to everyone.

Given 'yeah well you're a student right', does 'Well you're a mechanics student right?' exist in a neutral realm, neither confirming nor denying the premise?

yeah well you're a student right###Well you're a mechanics student right?

Is the premise sufficiently strong to logically lead to the hypothesis? Premise: yeah well you're a student right Hypothesis: Well you're a mechanics student right?

yeah well you're a student right###Well you're a mechanics student right?

Given 'yeah well you're a student right', does 'Well you're a mechanics student right?' present an opposing view?

yeah well you're a student right###Well you're a mechanics student right?

Given 'it really is i heard something that their supposed to be starting a huge campaign in New York about um child abuse and stopping child abuse and it's supposed to be like it's starting there supposed to be like a big nationwide campaign and you know so hopefully that will take off and really do something i don't know there's just', is 'It's unfortunate that nobody is organizing a child abuse campaign.' its antithesis?

it really is i heard something that their supposed to be starting a huge campaign in New York about um child abuse and stopping child abuse and it's supposed to be like it's starting there supposed to be like a big nationwide campaign and you know so hopefully that will take off and really do something i don't know there's just###It's unfortunate that nobody is organizing a child abuse campaign.

Given 'it really is i heard something that their supposed to be starting a huge campaign in New York about um child abuse and stopping child abuse and it's supposed to be like it's starting there supposed to be like a big nationwide campaign and you know so hopefully that will take off and really do something i don't know there's just', would 'It's unfortunate that nobody is organizing a child abuse campaign.' be a logical outcome?

it really is i heard something that their supposed to be starting a huge campaign in New York about um child abuse and stopping child abuse and it's supposed to be like it's starting there supposed to be like a big nationwide campaign and you know so hopefully that will take off and really do something i don't know there's just###It's unfortunate that nobody is organizing a child abuse campaign.

Is there no direct logical correlation between 'it really is i heard something that their supposed to be starting a huge campaign in New York about um child abuse and stopping child abuse and it's supposed to be like it's starting there supposed to be like a big nationwide campaign and you know so hopefully that will take off and really do something i don't know there's just' and 'It's unfortunate that nobody is organizing a child abuse campaign.', indicating neutrality?

it really is i heard something that their supposed to be starting a huge campaign in New York about um child abuse and stopping child abuse and it's supposed to be like it's starting there supposed to be like a big nationwide campaign and you know so hopefully that will take off and really do something i don't know there's just###It's unfortunate that nobody is organizing a child abuse campaign.

Taking 'Postal Service were to reduce delivery frequency.' as a given, does it logically imply 'The postal service could deliver less frequently.'

Postal Service were to reduce delivery frequency.###The postal service could deliver less frequently.

Is there a neutral relationship between 'Postal Service were to reduce delivery frequency.' and 'The postal service could deliver less frequently.', lacking direct logical ties?

Postal Service were to reduce delivery frequency.###The postal service could deliver less frequently.

Considering 'Postal Service were to reduce delivery frequency.', is 'The postal service could deliver less frequently.' a statement that refutes it?

Postal Service were to reduce delivery frequency.###The postal service could deliver less frequently.

Is the premise sufficiently strong to logically lead to the hypothesis? Premise: And in another shift in the economy, it was found that lamb could be raised more cost-effectively on lowland farms in part because of the richer, more nutritious grazing land available there and as a result Lakeland farms became less profitable. Hypothesis: Another shift in the economy was found to be more nutritious.

And in another shift in the economy, it was found that lamb could be raised more cost-effectively on lowland farms in part because of the richer, more nutritious grazing land available there and as a result Lakeland farms became less profitable.###Another shift in the economy was found to be more nutritious.

Given the statement 'And in another shift in the economy, it was found that lamb could be raised more cost-effectively on lowland farms in part because of the richer, more nutritious grazing land available there and as a result Lakeland farms became less profitable.', is 'Another shift in the economy was found to be more nutritious.' neither a logical follow-up nor a contradiction?

And in another shift in the economy, it was found that lamb could be raised more cost-effectively on lowland farms in part because of the richer, more nutritious grazing land available there and as a result Lakeland farms became less profitable.###Another shift in the economy was found to be more nutritious.

Is there a fundamental disagreement between 'And in another shift in the economy, it was found that lamb could be raised more cost-effectively on lowland farms in part because of the richer, more nutritious grazing land available there and as a result Lakeland farms became less profitable.' and 'Another shift in the economy was found to be more nutritious.'

And in another shift in the economy, it was found that lamb could be raised more cost-effectively on lowland farms in part because of the richer, more nutritious grazing land available there and as a result Lakeland farms became less profitable.###Another shift in the economy was found to be more nutritious.

Consider the premise. Does the hypothesis naturally and logically follow? Premise: The rule contains information collection requirements which will allow EPA to determine that detergent additives which are effective in controlling deposits are used and that emission control goals are realized. Hypothesis: The rule has data collection requirements which aid the EPA to realize their emission control goals.

The rule contains information collection requirements which will allow EPA to determine that detergent additives which are effective in controlling deposits are used and that emission control goals are realized.###The rule has data collection requirements which aid the EPA to realize their emission control goals.

Given the premise, is the hypothesis maintaining a neutral stance? Premise: The rule contains information collection requirements which will allow EPA to determine that detergent additives which are effective in controlling deposits are used and that emission control goals are realized. Hypothesis: The rule has data collection requirements which aid the EPA to realize their emission control goals.

The rule contains information collection requirements which will allow EPA to determine that detergent additives which are effective in controlling deposits are used and that emission control goals are realized.###The rule has data collection requirements which aid the EPA to realize their emission control goals.

Is there a direct logical conflict between the premise and the hypothesis? Premise: The rule contains information collection requirements which will allow EPA to determine that detergent additives which are effective in controlling deposits are used and that emission control goals are realized. Hypothesis: The rule has data collection requirements which aid the EPA to realize their emission control goals.

The rule contains information collection requirements which will allow EPA to determine that detergent additives which are effective in controlling deposits are used and that emission control goals are realized.###The rule has data collection requirements which aid the EPA to realize their emission control goals.

Given the assertion 'Almost every hill has to the northeast there's a Moorish fort; no fewer than four ruined fortresses guard the harbour entrance; and two more, still in good repair the Atalaya and Galeras castles protect the sea-front arsenal, of vital importance to Spain's military.', does 'There are no castles Atalaya and Galeras.' offer a contrary position?

Almost every hill has to the northeast there's a Moorish fort; no fewer than four ruined fortresses guard the harbour entrance; and two more, still in good repair the Atalaya and Galeras castles protect the sea-front arsenal, of vital importance to Spain's military.###There are no castles Atalaya and Galeras.

Does the premise 'Almost every hill has to the northeast there's a Moorish fort; no fewer than four ruined fortresses guard the harbour entrance; and two more, still in good repair the Atalaya and Galeras castles protect the sea-front arsenal, of vital importance to Spain's military.' naturally result in the hypothesis 'There are no castles Atalaya and Galeras.'

Almost every hill has to the northeast there's a Moorish fort; no fewer than four ruined fortresses guard the harbour entrance; and two more, still in good repair the Atalaya and Galeras castles protect the sea-front arsenal, of vital importance to Spain's military.###There are no castles Atalaya and Galeras.

Given 'Almost every hill has to the northeast there's a Moorish fort; no fewer than four ruined fortresses guard the harbour entrance; and two more, still in good repair the Atalaya and Galeras castles protect the sea-front arsenal, of vital importance to Spain's military.', can 'There are no castles Atalaya and Galeras.' be seen as maintaining a distinct, neutral position?

Almost every hill has to the northeast there's a Moorish fort; no fewer than four ruined fortresses guard the harbour entrance; and two more, still in good repair the Atalaya and Galeras castles protect the sea-front arsenal, of vital importance to Spain's military.###There are no castles Atalaya and Galeras.

Is there a neutral relationship between 'Were they in there?' and 'Were they supposed to be in there?', lacking direct logical ties?

Were they in there?###Were they supposed to be in there?

Does the foundation laid by 'Were they in there?' logically support 'Were they supposed to be in there?'

Were they in there?###Were they supposed to be in there?

Does 'Were they in there?' logically negate the premise 'Were they supposed to be in there?'

Were they in there?###Were they supposed to be in there?

Given 'Felicia's Journey takes place behind the eyes of its central a young Irish girl, Felicia, who crosses the sea to England in a hopeful quest to find the father of her unborn child; and the fat, middle-aged catering manager, Hiditch, who takes a paternal interest in the lass when it becomes clear that her young man has caddishly given her the slip.', is 'The woman did not care where the man was as long as it was far.' its antithesis?

Felicia's Journey takes place behind the eyes of its central a young Irish girl, Felicia, who crosses the sea to England in a hopeful quest to find the father of her unborn child; and the fat, middle-aged catering manager, Hiditch, who takes a paternal interest in the lass when it becomes clear that her young man has caddishly given her the slip.###The woman did not care where the man was as long as it was far.