Datasets:

Neuronovo

/

neuronovo-utc-data-glue-mnli

like 0

Instruction: Does the hypothesis follow logically from the premise? Premise: 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. Hypothesis: The woman did not care where the man was as long as it was far.

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.

In relation to '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.', does 'The woman did not care where the man was as long as it was far.' represent a neutral and unrelated viewpoint?

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.

Does the narrative of 'In the crypt are interred the remains of Voltaire and Rousseau, Hugo and Zola, assassinated Socialist leader Jean Jaurys, and Louis Braille, the inventor of the alphabet for the blind.' logically evolve into 'The remains of Voltaire and Rousseau, Hugo and Zola, assassinated Socialist leader Jean Jaurys, and Louis Braille are all interred in the crypt.'

In the crypt are interred the remains of Voltaire and Rousseau, Hugo and Zola, assassinated Socialist leader Jean Jaurys, and Louis Braille, the inventor of the alphabet for the blind.###The remains of Voltaire and Rousseau, Hugo and Zola, assassinated Socialist leader Jean Jaurys, and Louis Braille are all interred in the crypt.

Is 'In the crypt are interred the remains of Voltaire and Rousseau, Hugo and Zola, assassinated Socialist leader Jean Jaurys, and Louis Braille, the inventor of the alphabet for the blind.' an autonomous statement, not logically connected to 'The remains of Voltaire and Rousseau, Hugo and Zola, assassinated Socialist leader Jean Jaurys, and Louis Braille are all interred in the crypt.'

In the crypt are interred the remains of Voltaire and Rousseau, Hugo and Zola, assassinated Socialist leader Jean Jaurys, and Louis Braille, the inventor of the alphabet for the blind.###The remains of Voltaire and Rousseau, Hugo and Zola, assassinated Socialist leader Jean Jaurys, and Louis Braille are all interred in the crypt.

Does 'In the crypt are interred the remains of Voltaire and Rousseau, Hugo and Zola, assassinated Socialist leader Jean Jaurys, and Louis Braille, the inventor of the alphabet for the blind.' serve to directly refute the premise presented in 'The remains of Voltaire and Rousseau, Hugo and Zola, assassinated Socialist leader Jean Jaurys, and Louis Braille are all interred in the crypt.'

In the crypt are interred the remains of Voltaire and Rousseau, Hugo and Zola, assassinated Socialist leader Jean Jaurys, and Louis Braille, the inventor of the alphabet for the blind.###The remains of Voltaire and Rousseau, Hugo and Zola, assassinated Socialist leader Jean Jaurys, and Louis Braille are all interred in the crypt.

Starting from 'there's a uh a couple called um oh i'm going to forgot his name now uh Dirkson', does it naturally lead to the conclusion 'I can't remember their name'

there's a uh a couple called um oh i'm going to forgot his name now uh Dirkson###I can't remember their name

Does 'there's a uh a couple called um oh i'm going to forgot his name now uh Dirkson' hold a position of neutrality in relation to 'I can't remember their name'

there's a uh a couple called um oh i'm going to forgot his name now uh Dirkson###I can't remember their name

Given the premise, is the hypothesis presenting a conflicting viewpoint? Premise: there's a uh a couple called um oh i'm going to forgot his name now uh Dirkson Hypothesis: I can't remember their name

there's a uh a couple called um oh i'm going to forgot his name now uh Dirkson###I can't remember their name

Does 'Poirot, I exclaimed, with relief, and seizing him by both hands, I dragged him into the room. ' stand in direct opposition to the premise 'Poirot was now back and I was sorry that he would take over what I now considered my own investigation. '

Poirot, I exclaimed, with relief, and seizing him by both hands, I dragged him into the room. ###Poirot was now back and I was sorry that he would take over what I now considered my own investigation.

Is 'Poirot, I exclaimed, with relief, and seizing him by both hands, I dragged him into the room. ' a fitting logical lead-up to 'Poirot was now back and I was sorry that he would take over what I now considered my own investigation. '

Poirot, I exclaimed, with relief, and seizing him by both hands, I dragged him into the room. ###Poirot was now back and I was sorry that he would take over what I now considered my own investigation.

Instruction: Is the hypothesis unrelated or neutral to the premise? Premise: Poirot, I exclaimed, with relief, and seizing him by both hands, I dragged him into the room. Hypothesis: Poirot was now back and I was sorry that he would take over what I now considered my own investigation.

Poirot, I exclaimed, with relief, and seizing him by both hands, I dragged him into the room. ###Poirot was now back and I was sorry that he would take over what I now considered my own investigation.

Does the statement 'well what the market can bear and' conflict with the idea presented in 'THe market can't bear any of it.'

well what the market can bear and###THe market can't bear any of it.

Given the premise, is the hypothesis an unavoidable conclusion? Premise: well what the market can bear and Hypothesis: THe market can't bear any of it.

well what the market can bear and###THe market can't bear any of it.

Does 'well what the market can bear and' exist in a separate context from 'THe market can't bear any of it.', without logical interdependence?

well what the market can bear and###THe market can't bear any of it.

Starting from 'And to show just how fast Japan's new rulers were catching on, two punitive expeditions were launched against Korea and China in the grand manner of 19th-century gunboat diplomacy.', does it naturally lead to the conclusion 'Japan's new rulers were catching on quickly.'

And to show just how fast Japan's new rulers were catching on, two punitive expeditions were launched against Korea and China in the grand manner of 19th-century gunboat diplomacy.###Japan's new rulers were catching on quickly.

Given the statement 'And to show just how fast Japan's new rulers were catching on, two punitive expeditions were launched against Korea and China in the grand manner of 19th-century gunboat diplomacy.', is 'Japan's new rulers were catching on quickly.' neither a logical follow-up nor a contradiction?

And to show just how fast Japan's new rulers were catching on, two punitive expeditions were launched against Korea and China in the grand manner of 19th-century gunboat diplomacy.###Japan's new rulers were catching on quickly.

Does 'And to show just how fast Japan's new rulers were catching on, two punitive expeditions were launched against Korea and China in the grand manner of 19th-century gunboat diplomacy.' provide a contradiction to the established premise 'Japan's new rulers were catching on quickly.'

And to show just how fast Japan's new rulers were catching on, two punitive expeditions were launched against Korea and China in the grand manner of 19th-century gunboat diplomacy.###Japan's new rulers were catching on quickly.

With the premise 'When the trust fund begins running cash deficits in 2016, the government as a whole must come up with the cash to finance Social Security's cash deficit by reducing any projected non-Social Security surpluses, borrowing from the public, raising other taxes, or reducing other government spending.', is 'The public would generally prefer to see the government reduce its spending in other areas to finance Social Security.' simply an unrelated statement?

When the trust fund begins running cash deficits in 2016, the government as a whole must come up with the cash to finance Social Security's cash deficit by reducing any projected non-Social Security surpluses, borrowing from the public, raising other taxes, or reducing other government spending.###The public would generally prefer to see the government reduce its spending in other areas to finance Social Security.

With the premise 'When the trust fund begins running cash deficits in 2016, the government as a whole must come up with the cash to finance Social Security's cash deficit by reducing any projected non-Social Security surpluses, borrowing from the public, raising other taxes, or reducing other government spending.', is 'The public would generally prefer to see the government reduce its spending in other areas to finance Social Security.' a logical derivative?

When the trust fund begins running cash deficits in 2016, the government as a whole must come up with the cash to finance Social Security's cash deficit by reducing any projected non-Social Security surpluses, borrowing from the public, raising other taxes, or reducing other government spending.###The public would generally prefer to see the government reduce its spending in other areas to finance Social Security.

Does 'When the trust fund begins running cash deficits in 2016, the government as a whole must come up with the cash to finance Social Security's cash deficit by reducing any projected non-Social Security surpluses, borrowing from the public, raising other taxes, or reducing other government spending.' stand in direct opposition to the premise 'The public would generally prefer to see the government reduce its spending in other areas to finance Social Security.'

When the trust fund begins running cash deficits in 2016, the government as a whole must come up with the cash to finance Social Security's cash deficit by reducing any projected non-Social Security surpluses, borrowing from the public, raising other taxes, or reducing other government spending.###The public would generally prefer to see the government reduce its spending in other areas to finance Social Security.

With the premise 'These organizations invest the time and effort to understand their processes and how those processes contribute to or hamper mission accomplishment.', is 'These organizations invest lots of time to understand how some processes can contribute to or haampe' a logical derivative?

These organizations invest the time and effort to understand their processes and how those processes contribute to or hamper mission accomplishment.###These organizations invest lots of time to understand how some processes can contribute to or haampe

Given the statement 'These organizations invest the time and effort to understand their processes and how those processes contribute to or hamper mission accomplishment.', is 'These organizations invest lots of time to understand how some processes can contribute to or haampe' neither a logical follow-up nor a contradiction?

These organizations invest the time and effort to understand their processes and how those processes contribute to or hamper mission accomplishment.###These organizations invest lots of time to understand how some processes can contribute to or haampe

Instruction: Does the hypothesis contradict the premise? Premise: These organizations invest the time and effort to understand their processes and how those processes contribute to or hamper mission accomplishment. Hypothesis: These organizations invest lots of time to understand how some processes can contribute to or haampe

These organizations invest the time and effort to understand their processes and how those processes contribute to or hamper mission accomplishment.###These organizations invest lots of time to understand how some processes can contribute to or haampe

Does 'and it is nice talking to you all righty' neither support nor refute 'I talk to you every day.', instead existing independently?

and it is nice talking to you all righty###I talk to you every day.

Instruction: Does the hypothesis follow logically from the premise? Premise: and it is nice talking to you all righty Hypothesis: I talk to you every day.

and it is nice talking to you all righty###I talk to you every day.

Given the premise, is the hypothesis presenting a conflicting viewpoint? Premise: and it is nice talking to you all righty Hypothesis: I talk to you every day.

and it is nice talking to you all righty###I talk to you every day.

If we start with 'You have access to the facts. ', does it make sense to conclude with 'The facts are accessible to you.'

You have access to the facts. ###The facts are accessible to you.

Is there an absence of a logical link between 'You have access to the facts. ' and 'The facts are accessible to you.'

You have access to the facts. ###The facts are accessible to you.

Consider the premise. Does the hypothesis directly oppose it? Premise: You have access to the facts. Hypothesis: The facts are accessible to you.

You have access to the facts. ###The facts are accessible to you.

Taking 'Build environment Engineering Manufacturing Production (all rate tooling) (1st set of production tooling)' as a given, does it logically imply 'It is the first set of production tooling for manufacturing.'

Build environment Engineering Manufacturing Production (all rate tooling) (1st set of production tooling)###It is the first set of production tooling for manufacturing.

Evaluate if the hypothesis neither contradicts nor follows from the premise. Premise: Build environment Engineering Manufacturing Production (all rate tooling) (1st set of production tooling) Hypothesis: It is the first set of production tooling for manufacturing.

Build environment Engineering Manufacturing Production (all rate tooling) (1st set of production tooling)###It is the first set of production tooling for manufacturing.

Analyze if the hypothesis is in clear contradiction to the premise. Premise: Build environment Engineering Manufacturing Production (all rate tooling) (1st set of production tooling) Hypothesis: It is the first set of production tooling for manufacturing.

Build environment Engineering Manufacturing Production (all rate tooling) (1st set of production tooling)###It is the first set of production tooling for manufacturing.

Analyze if the hypothesis is in clear contradiction to the premise. Premise: As long you have your own household in order, fretting about your neighbor's spending habits is a lot like fretting about the color of his living-room rug. Hypothesis: You should worry about the color of your neighbor's rug.

As long you have your own household in order, fretting about your neighbor's spending habits is a lot like fretting about the color of his living-room rug.###You should worry about the color of your neighbor's rug.

With the premise 'As long you have your own household in order, fretting about your neighbor's spending habits is a lot like fretting about the color of his living-room rug.', is 'You should worry about the color of your neighbor's rug. ' a logical derivative?

As long you have your own household in order, fretting about your neighbor's spending habits is a lot like fretting about the color of his living-room rug.###You should worry about the color of your neighbor's rug.

Is 'As long you have your own household in order, fretting about your neighbor's spending habits is a lot like fretting about the color of his living-room rug.' an autonomous statement, not logically connected to 'You should worry about the color of your neighbor's rug. '

As long you have your own household in order, fretting about your neighbor's spending habits is a lot like fretting about the color of his living-room rug.###You should worry about the color of your neighbor's rug.

Is there a direct logical conflict between the premise and the hypothesis? Premise: yeah so um also of course they they can they join the they can always join the military service they are considered citizens i believe Hypothesis: They can't join the military service

yeah so um also of course they they can they join the they can always join the military service they are considered citizens i believe###They can't join the military service

Does the narrative of 'yeah so um also of course they they can they join the they can always join the military service they are considered citizens i believe' logically evolve into 'They can't join the military service'

yeah so um also of course they they can they join the they can always join the military service they are considered citizens i believe###They can't join the military service

Does 'yeah so um also of course they they can they join the they can always join the military service they are considered citizens i believe' neither support nor refute 'They can't join the military service', instead existing independently?

yeah so um also of course they they can they join the they can always join the military service they are considered citizens i believe###They can't join the military service

From 'She smiled back.', can we conclude that 'She was so happy she couldn't stop smiling.' is unrelated and maintains neutrality?

She smiled back.###She was so happy she couldn't stop smiling.

Given 'She smiled back.', would 'She was so happy she couldn't stop smiling.' be a logical outcome?

She smiled back.###She was so happy she couldn't stop smiling.

Does the statement 'She smiled back.' conflict with the idea presented in 'She was so happy she couldn't stop smiling.'

She smiled back.###She was so happy she couldn't stop smiling.

Does the premise 'According to the Office of the Actuary at the Health Care Financing Administration, the estimated net present value of future additional resources needed to fund HI benefits alone over the 75 years is $4.' naturally result in the hypothesis 'The net present value of future additional resources for funding HI benefits was $4.'

According to the Office of the Actuary at the Health Care Financing Administration, the estimated net present value of future additional resources needed to fund HI benefits alone over the 75 years is $4.###The net present value of future additional resources for funding HI benefits was $4.

Does 'According to the Office of the Actuary at the Health Care Financing Administration, the estimated net present value of future additional resources needed to fund HI benefits alone over the 75 years is $4.' stand independently of the premise 'The net present value of future additional resources for funding HI benefits was $4.', neither following nor contradicting it?

According to the Office of the Actuary at the Health Care Financing Administration, the estimated net present value of future additional resources needed to fund HI benefits alone over the 75 years is $4.###The net present value of future additional resources for funding HI benefits was $4.

Given 'According to the Office of the Actuary at the Health Care Financing Administration, the estimated net present value of future additional resources needed to fund HI benefits alone over the 75 years is $4.', is 'The net present value of future additional resources for funding HI benefits was $4.' its antithesis?

According to the Office of the Actuary at the Health Care Financing Administration, the estimated net present value of future additional resources needed to fund HI benefits alone over the 75 years is $4.###The net present value of future additional resources for funding HI benefits was $4.

If 'Thus, with respect to the litigation services Congress has funded, there is no alternative channel for expression of the advocacy Congress seeks to restrict.' is true, does it logically mean that 'This is the only channel of expression of the advocacy that Congress seeks to restrict.' also is?

Thus, with respect to the litigation services Congress has funded, there is no alternative channel for expression of the advocacy Congress seeks to restrict.###This is the only channel of expression of the advocacy that Congress seeks to restrict.

Does 'Thus, with respect to the litigation services Congress has funded, there is no alternative channel for expression of the advocacy Congress seeks to restrict.' stand independently of the premise 'This is the only channel of expression of the advocacy that Congress seeks to restrict.', neither following nor contradicting it?

Thus, with respect to the litigation services Congress has funded, there is no alternative channel for expression of the advocacy Congress seeks to restrict.###This is the only channel of expression of the advocacy that Congress seeks to restrict.

Does 'Thus, with respect to the litigation services Congress has funded, there is no alternative channel for expression of the advocacy Congress seeks to restrict.' challenge or dispute the premise 'This is the only channel of expression of the advocacy that Congress seeks to restrict.'

Thus, with respect to the litigation services Congress has funded, there is no alternative channel for expression of the advocacy Congress seeks to restrict.###This is the only channel of expression of the advocacy that Congress seeks to restrict.

Does the narrative of 'How do we fix this?'' logically evolve into 'Can we fix this?'

How do we fix this?'###Can we fix this?

Does 'How do we fix this?'' exist in a separate context from 'Can we fix this?', without logical interdependence?

How do we fix this?'###Can we fix this?

Considering 'How do we fix this?'', is 'Can we fix this?' a statement that refutes it?

How do we fix this?'###Can we fix this?

Does the statement 'but that takes too much planning' conflict with the idea presented in 'It doesn't take much planning.'

but that takes too much planning###It doesn't take much planning.

Is 'but that takes too much planning' a fitting logical lead-up to 'It doesn't take much planning.'

but that takes too much planning###It doesn't take much planning.

Given the premise, is the hypothesis maintaining a neutral stance? Premise: but that takes too much planning Hypothesis: It doesn't take much planning.

but that takes too much planning###It doesn't take much planning.

Evaluate if the hypothesis neither contradicts nor follows from the premise. Premise: I did not mention Monica in my lecture, but the first question I was asked was how President Clinton could do his job with all the distractions caused by the Monica Lewinsky affair. Hypothesis: They wanted to get through the lecture without any problems.

I did not mention Monica in my lecture, but the first question I was asked was how President Clinton could do his job with all the distractions caused by the Monica Lewinsky affair.###They wanted to get through the lecture without any problems.

With the premise 'I did not mention Monica in my lecture, but the first question I was asked was how President Clinton could do his job with all the distractions caused by the Monica Lewinsky affair.', is 'They wanted to get through the lecture without any problems.' a reasonable conclusion?

I did not mention Monica in my lecture, but the first question I was asked was how President Clinton could do his job with all the distractions caused by the Monica Lewinsky affair.###They wanted to get through the lecture without any problems.

Instruction: Does the hypothesis contradict the premise? Premise: I did not mention Monica in my lecture, but the first question I was asked was how President Clinton could do his job with all the distractions caused by the Monica Lewinsky affair. Hypothesis: They wanted to get through the lecture without any problems.

I did not mention Monica in my lecture, but the first question I was asked was how President Clinton could do his job with all the distractions caused by the Monica Lewinsky affair.###They wanted to get through the lecture without any problems.

Is there an absence of a logical link between 'Analyzing Postal Service accounts for depreciation, fuel, and maintenance for city delivery carriers, we have estimated the average city delivery vehicle cost per route.' and 'Driving cost estimates can be averaged will sufficient data.'

Analyzing Postal Service accounts for depreciation, fuel, and maintenance for city delivery carriers, we have estimated the average city delivery vehicle cost per route.###Driving cost estimates can be averaged will sufficient data.

Taking 'Analyzing Postal Service accounts for depreciation, fuel, and maintenance for city delivery carriers, we have estimated the average city delivery vehicle cost per route.' as a given, does it logically imply 'Driving cost estimates can be averaged will sufficient data.'

Analyzing Postal Service accounts for depreciation, fuel, and maintenance for city delivery carriers, we have estimated the average city delivery vehicle cost per route.###Driving cost estimates can be averaged will sufficient data.

Given 'Analyzing Postal Service accounts for depreciation, fuel, and maintenance for city delivery carriers, we have estimated the average city delivery vehicle cost per route.', does 'Driving cost estimates can be averaged will sufficient data.' present an opposing view?

Analyzing Postal Service accounts for depreciation, fuel, and maintenance for city delivery carriers, we have estimated the average city delivery vehicle cost per route.###Driving cost estimates can be averaged will sufficient data.

Considering the premise 'Because it plays on my childhood imagination.', is 'The art plays on my young imagination.' a statement that stands on its own?

Because it plays on my childhood imagination.###The art plays on my young imagination.

Starting from 'Because it plays on my childhood imagination.', does it naturally lead to the conclusion 'The art plays on my young imagination.'

Because it plays on my childhood imagination.###The art plays on my young imagination.

Consider the premise. Does the hypothesis directly oppose it? Premise: Because it plays on my childhood imagination. Hypothesis: The art plays on my young imagination.

Because it plays on my childhood imagination.###The art plays on my young imagination.

Consider the premise. Does the hypothesis directly oppose it? Premise: it's slow it's uh there are many better machines on the market right now for Hypothesis: This is the fastest machine, you won't find a better machine.

it's slow it's uh there are many better machines on the market right now for###This is the fastest machine, you won't find a better machine.

With the premise 'it's slow it's uh there are many better machines on the market right now for', is 'This is the fastest machine, you won't find a better machine.' a reasonable conclusion?

it's slow it's uh there are many better machines on the market right now for###This is the fastest machine, you won't find a better machine.

Evaluate if the hypothesis neither contradicts nor follows from the premise. Premise: it's slow it's uh there are many better machines on the market right now for Hypothesis: This is the fastest machine, you won't find a better machine.

it's slow it's uh there are many better machines on the market right now for###This is the fastest machine, you won't find a better machine.

Given 'At the heart of the sanctuary, a small granite shrine once held the sacred barque of Horus himself.', does 'Horus is a god.' exist in a neutral realm, neither confirming nor denying the premise?

At the heart of the sanctuary, a small granite shrine once held the sacred barque of Horus himself.###Horus is a god.

Does the narrative of 'At the heart of the sanctuary, a small granite shrine once held the sacred barque of Horus himself.' logically evolve into 'Horus is a god.'

At the heart of the sanctuary, a small granite shrine once held the sacred barque of Horus himself.###Horus is a god.

Is there a fundamental disagreement between 'At the heart of the sanctuary, a small granite shrine once held the sacred barque of Horus himself.' and 'Horus is a god.'

At the heart of the sanctuary, a small granite shrine once held the sacred barque of Horus himself.###Horus is a god.

Is there a direct logical conflict between the premise and the hypothesis? Premise: Consider the United States Postal Service. Hypothesis: Forget the United States Postal Service.

Consider the United States Postal Service.###Forget the United States Postal Service.

Does accepting 'Consider the United States Postal Service.' as true logically compel one to accept 'Forget the United States Postal Service.'

Consider the United States Postal Service.###Forget the United States Postal Service.

Does the connection between 'Consider the United States Postal Service.' and 'Forget the United States Postal Service.' lack any definitive logical relationship?

Consider the United States Postal Service.###Forget the United States Postal Service.

Is there an absence of a logical link between 'In full costume.' and 'He is wearing a mascot costume.'

In full costume.###He is wearing a mascot costume.

From the starting point of 'In full costume.', does 'He is wearing a mascot costume.' follow as a logical conclusion?

In full costume.###He is wearing a mascot costume.

In the context of 'In full costume.', does 'He is wearing a mascot costume.' serve as a direct counterargument?

In full costume.###He is wearing a mascot costume.

Given the premise, is the hypothesis maintaining a neutral stance? Premise: Although your journey is going to be difficult and at times you will doubt yourselves, the benefits to clients are well worth it and the satisfaction of hearing even the most recalcitrant of adversaries say that the new system is better than the one that went before is deeply rewarding. Hypothesis: The new system appears far more complex, but ultimately easier and more thorough.

Although your journey is going to be difficult and at times you will doubt yourselves, the benefits to clients are well worth it and the satisfaction of hearing even the most recalcitrant of adversaries say that the new system is better than the one that went before is deeply rewarding.###The new system appears far more complex, but ultimately easier and more thorough.

Does the narrative of 'Although your journey is going to be difficult and at times you will doubt yourselves, the benefits to clients are well worth it and the satisfaction of hearing even the most recalcitrant of adversaries say that the new system is better than the one that went before is deeply rewarding.' logically evolve into 'The new system appears far more complex, but ultimately easier and more thorough.'

Although your journey is going to be difficult and at times you will doubt yourselves, the benefits to clients are well worth it and the satisfaction of hearing even the most recalcitrant of adversaries say that the new system is better than the one that went before is deeply rewarding.###The new system appears far more complex, but ultimately easier and more thorough.

In the context of 'Although your journey is going to be difficult and at times you will doubt yourselves, the benefits to clients are well worth it and the satisfaction of hearing even the most recalcitrant of adversaries say that the new system is better than the one that went before is deeply rewarding.', does 'The new system appears far more complex, but ultimately easier and more thorough.' serve as a direct counterargument?

Although your journey is going to be difficult and at times you will doubt yourselves, the benefits to clients are well worth it and the satisfaction of hearing even the most recalcitrant of adversaries say that the new system is better than the one that went before is deeply rewarding.###The new system appears far more complex, but ultimately easier and more thorough.

Does the premise 'Take a remarkable statistic that Shesol cites but lets pass relatively unexamined.' naturally result in the hypothesis 'They had data that was very relevant but under used.'

Take a remarkable statistic that Shesol cites but lets pass relatively unexamined.###They had data that was very relevant but under used.

In the context of 'Take a remarkable statistic that Shesol cites but lets pass relatively unexamined.', does 'They had data that was very relevant but under used.' stand alone without direct association?

Take a remarkable statistic that Shesol cites but lets pass relatively unexamined.###They had data that was very relevant but under used.

Is there an overt contradiction between 'Take a remarkable statistic that Shesol cites but lets pass relatively unexamined.' and 'They had data that was very relevant but under used.'

Take a remarkable statistic that Shesol cites but lets pass relatively unexamined.###They had data that was very relevant but under used.

In response to 'It might have seemed like manna from heaven - up to thousands of dollars dropping, often unexpectedly, into the hands of a half-million Kentucky and Indiana residents this month.', does 'A recent law proposed by congress has resulted in the seizure of thousands of dollars from Kentucky residents.' serve as a counterstatement?

It might have seemed like manna from heaven - up to thousands of dollars dropping, often unexpectedly, into the hands of a half-million Kentucky and Indiana residents this month.###A recent law proposed by congress has resulted in the seizure of thousands of dollars from Kentucky residents.

Starting from 'It might have seemed like manna from heaven - up to thousands of dollars dropping, often unexpectedly, into the hands of a half-million Kentucky and Indiana residents this month.', does it naturally lead to the conclusion 'A recent law proposed by congress has resulted in the seizure of thousands of dollars from Kentucky residents.'

It might have seemed like manna from heaven - up to thousands of dollars dropping, often unexpectedly, into the hands of a half-million Kentucky and Indiana residents this month.###A recent law proposed by congress has resulted in the seizure of thousands of dollars from Kentucky residents.

Given the premise, is the hypothesis maintaining a neutral stance? Premise: It might have seemed like manna from heaven - up to thousands of dollars dropping, often unexpectedly, into the hands of a half-million Kentucky and Indiana residents this month. Hypothesis: A recent law proposed by congress has resulted in the seizure of thousands of dollars from Kentucky residents.

It might have seemed like manna from heaven - up to thousands of dollars dropping, often unexpectedly, into the hands of a half-million Kentucky and Indiana residents this month.###A recent law proposed by congress has resulted in the seizure of thousands of dollars from Kentucky residents.

Does accepting 'Get individuals to invest their time and the funding will follow.' as true logically compel one to accept 'If individuals will invest their time, funding will come along, too.'

Get individuals to invest their time and the funding will follow.###If individuals will invest their time, funding will come along, too.

Does 'Get individuals to invest their time and the funding will follow.' hold a position of neutrality in relation to 'If individuals will invest their time, funding will come along, too.'

Get individuals to invest their time and the funding will follow.###If individuals will invest their time, funding will come along, too.

Given the premise, is the hypothesis presenting a conflicting viewpoint? Premise: Get individuals to invest their time and the funding will follow. Hypothesis: If individuals will invest their time, funding will come along, too.

Get individuals to invest their time and the funding will follow.###If individuals will invest their time, funding will come along, too.

Does 'i often think gee i wish i had a video camera because i could sure use ten thousand dollars so but i like things like Evening Shade with Burt Reynolds i really enjoy that and uh' stand independently of the premise 'Video cameras that I need are very expensive.', neither following nor contradicting it?

i often think gee i wish i had a video camera because i could sure use ten thousand dollars so but i like things like Evening Shade with Burt Reynolds i really enjoy that and uh###Video cameras that I need are very expensive.

Given the context of 'i often think gee i wish i had a video camera because i could sure use ten thousand dollars so but i like things like Evening Shade with Burt Reynolds i really enjoy that and uh', does 'Video cameras that I need are very expensive.' emerge logically?

i often think gee i wish i had a video camera because i could sure use ten thousand dollars so but i like things like Evening Shade with Burt Reynolds i really enjoy that and uh###Video cameras that I need are very expensive.

Does 'i often think gee i wish i had a video camera because i could sure use ten thousand dollars so but i like things like Evening Shade with Burt Reynolds i really enjoy that and uh' logically negate the premise 'Video cameras that I need are very expensive.'

i often think gee i wish i had a video camera because i could sure use ten thousand dollars so but i like things like Evening Shade with Burt Reynolds i really enjoy that and uh###Video cameras that I need are very expensive.

Does 'The man on the ground thinks for a moment and yells back, You must work in management.' stand in direct opposition to the premise 'There was no one on the ground, man or woman.'

The man on the ground thinks for a moment and yells back, You must work in management.###There was no one on the ground, man or woman.

Given 'The man on the ground thinks for a moment and yells back, You must work in management.', would 'There was no one on the ground, man or woman.' be a logical outcome?

The man on the ground thinks for a moment and yells back, You must work in management.###There was no one on the ground, man or woman.

In the context of 'The man on the ground thinks for a moment and yells back, You must work in management.', does 'There was no one on the ground, man or woman.' stand alone without direct association?

The man on the ground thinks for a moment and yells back, You must work in management.###There was no one on the ground, man or woman.

Analyze if the hypothesis is in clear contradiction to the premise. Premise: If, however, the evaluation question requires GAO to report on how satisfactory progress is or the reasons for problems in implementation, the more staff who can be on site over time, with the ricHe'st or thickest base for examining the situation as the many people involved see it, the sounder our causal conclusions and subsequent recommendations will be. Hypothesis: If the GAO has to report on the progress, the recommendations will be much poorer quality.

If, however, the evaluation question requires GAO to report on how satisfactory progress is or the reasons for problems in implementation, the more staff who can be on site over time, with the ricHe'st or thickest base for examining the situation as the many people involved see it, the sounder our causal conclusions and subsequent recommendations will be.###If the GAO has to report on the progress, the recommendations will be much poorer quality.

Is 'If, however, the evaluation question requires GAO to report on how satisfactory progress is or the reasons for problems in implementation, the more staff who can be on site over time, with the ricHe'st or thickest base for examining the situation as the many people involved see it, the sounder our causal conclusions and subsequent recommendations will be.' a fitting logical lead-up to 'If the GAO has to report on the progress, the recommendations will be much poorer quality.'

If, however, the evaluation question requires GAO to report on how satisfactory progress is or the reasons for problems in implementation, the more staff who can be on site over time, with the ricHe'st or thickest base for examining the situation as the many people involved see it, the sounder our causal conclusions and subsequent recommendations will be.###If the GAO has to report on the progress, the recommendations will be much poorer quality.

Is 'If, however, the evaluation question requires GAO to report on how satisfactory progress is or the reasons for problems in implementation, the more staff who can be on site over time, with the ricHe'st or thickest base for examining the situation as the many people involved see it, the sounder our causal conclusions and subsequent recommendations will be.' an autonomous statement, not logically connected to 'If the GAO has to report on the progress, the recommendations will be much poorer quality.'

If, however, the evaluation question requires GAO to report on how satisfactory progress is or the reasons for problems in implementation, the more staff who can be on site over time, with the ricHe'st or thickest base for examining the situation as the many people involved see it, the sounder our causal conclusions and subsequent recommendations will be.###If the GAO has to report on the progress, the recommendations will be much poorer quality.

In response to 'The economy could be still better.', does 'The economy has never been better.' serve as a counterstatement?

The economy could be still better.###The economy has never been better.

Given the context of 'The economy could be still better.', does 'The economy has never been better.' emerge logically?

The economy could be still better.###The economy has never been better.

Instruction: Is the hypothesis unrelated or neutral to the premise? Premise: The economy could be still better. Hypothesis: The economy has never been better.

The economy could be still better.###The economy has never been better.

Is there a fundamental disagreement between 'The famous tenements (or lands ) began to be built.' and 'The land remained deserted.'

The famous tenements (or lands ) began to be built.###The land remained deserted.

From 'The famous tenements (or lands ) began to be built.', can we infer that 'The land remained deserted.' follows logically?

The famous tenements (or lands ) began to be built.###The land remained deserted.