Datasets:

Neuronovo

/

neuronovo-utc-data-glue-mnli

like 0

Considering the premise 'Many responses pivoted on the amusing contrast between uptown swells and downtown schlubs, but this reliable device, the mighty comic engine that generated so many terrific Depression-era comedies and dimwitted Lampoon movies--Snobs vs.', is 'There was no visible difference between the uptown and downtown.' a statement that stands on its own?

Many responses pivoted on the amusing contrast between uptown swells and downtown schlubs, but this reliable device, the mighty comic engine that generated so many terrific Depression-era comedies and dimwitted Lampoon movies--Snobs vs.###There was no visible difference between the uptown and downtown.

Does the statement 'Four monasteries developed as a source of protection still remain, and each has a church, monks' quarters and a sturdy high wall.' conflict with the idea presented in 'Only three monasteries still exist here, and all their walls are crumpled and weak.'

Four monasteries developed as a source of protection still remain, and each has a church, monks' quarters and a sturdy high wall.###Only three monasteries still exist here, and all their walls are crumpled and weak.

Does 'Four monasteries developed as a source of protection still remain, and each has a church, monks' quarters and a sturdy high wall.' logically set the stage for the hypothesis 'Only three monasteries still exist here, and all their walls are crumpled and weak.'

Four monasteries developed as a source of protection still remain, and each has a church, monks' quarters and a sturdy high wall.###Only three monasteries still exist here, and all their walls are crumpled and weak.

Does 'Four monasteries developed as a source of protection still remain, and each has a church, monks' quarters and a sturdy high wall.' stand independently of the premise 'Only three monasteries still exist here, and all their walls are crumpled and weak.', neither following nor contradicting it?

Four monasteries developed as a source of protection still remain, and each has a church, monks' quarters and a sturdy high wall.###Only three monasteries still exist here, and all their walls are crumpled and weak.

Is there a neutral relationship between 'There was nothing like that emotion now.' and 'There are few emotions that come close.', lacking direct logical ties?

There was nothing like that emotion now.###There are few emotions that come close.

Given 'There was nothing like that emotion now.', would 'There are few emotions that come close.' be a logical outcome?

There was nothing like that emotion now.###There are few emotions that come close.

Is there a clear contradiction between 'There was nothing like that emotion now.' and 'There are few emotions that come close.'

There was nothing like that emotion now.###There are few emotions that come close.

With the premise 'Drawing a blank?', is 'You can be drawing a blank.' a reasonable conclusion?

Drawing a blank?###You can be drawing a blank.

In the context of 'Drawing a blank?', does 'You can be drawing a blank.' stand alone without direct association?

Drawing a blank?###You can be drawing a blank.

Is there a direct logical conflict between the premise and the hypothesis? Premise: Drawing a blank? Hypothesis: You can be drawing a blank.

Drawing a blank?###You can be drawing a blank.

In relation to 'Legacy, predicting that he will keep custody of his kids but lose his appeal of the civil decision.', does 'His children love their father and it's a great thing they're together.' represent a neutral and unrelated viewpoint?

Legacy, predicting that he will keep custody of his kids but lose his appeal of the civil decision.###His children love their father and it's a great thing they're together.

Considering 'Legacy, predicting that he will keep custody of his kids but lose his appeal of the civil decision.', can one logically arrive at 'His children love their father and it's a great thing they're together.'

Legacy, predicting that he will keep custody of his kids but lose his appeal of the civil decision.###His children love their father and it's a great thing they're together.

Given the premise, is the hypothesis presenting a conflicting viewpoint? Premise: Legacy, predicting that he will keep custody of his kids but lose his appeal of the civil decision. Hypothesis: His children love their father and it's a great thing they're together.

Legacy, predicting that he will keep custody of his kids but lose his appeal of the civil decision.###His children love their father and it's a great thing they're together.

Analyze if the hypothesis is in clear contradiction to the premise. Premise: Clearly, California can - and must - do better. Hypothesis: California cannot do any better.

Clearly, California can - and must - do better.###California cannot do any better.

Taking 'Clearly, California can - and must - do better.' as a given, does it logically imply 'California cannot do any better.'

Clearly, California can - and must - do better.###California cannot do any better.

Does 'Clearly, California can - and must - do better.' hold a position of neutrality in relation to 'California cannot do any better.'

Clearly, California can - and must - do better.###California cannot do any better.

Does 'It was once regarded as the most beautiful street in Europe, a claim that is difficult to understand today since so many of the original buildings have been replaced.' stand independently of the premise 'So many of the original buildings had been replaced by convenience stores.', neither following nor contradicting it?

It was once regarded as the most beautiful street in Europe, a claim that is difficult to understand today since so many of the original buildings have been replaced.###So many of the original buildings had been replaced by convenience stores.

Given the premise, is the hypothesis an unavoidable conclusion? Premise: It was once regarded as the most beautiful street in Europe, a claim that is difficult to understand today since so many of the original buildings have been replaced. Hypothesis: So many of the original buildings had been replaced by convenience stores.

It was once regarded as the most beautiful street in Europe, a claim that is difficult to understand today since so many of the original buildings have been replaced.###So many of the original buildings had been replaced by convenience stores.

Is there a fundamental disagreement between 'It was once regarded as the most beautiful street in Europe, a claim that is difficult to understand today since so many of the original buildings have been replaced.' and 'So many of the original buildings had been replaced by convenience stores.'

It was once regarded as the most beautiful street in Europe, a claim that is difficult to understand today since so many of the original buildings have been replaced.###So many of the original buildings had been replaced by convenience stores.

Considering 'Houseboats are a beautifully preserved tradition of the heyday of the British Raj.', can one logically arrive at 'The tradition of houseboats originated while the British Raj was still going strong.'

Houseboats are a beautifully preserved tradition of the heyday of the British Raj.###The tradition of houseboats originated while the British Raj was still going strong.

Given the statement 'Houseboats are a beautifully preserved tradition of the heyday of the British Raj.', is 'The tradition of houseboats originated while the British Raj was still going strong.' neither a logical follow-up nor a contradiction?

Houseboats are a beautifully preserved tradition of the heyday of the British Raj.###The tradition of houseboats originated while the British Raj was still going strong.

Given 'Houseboats are a beautifully preserved tradition of the heyday of the British Raj.', does 'The tradition of houseboats originated while the British Raj was still going strong.' present an opposing view?

Houseboats are a beautifully preserved tradition of the heyday of the British Raj.###The tradition of houseboats originated while the British Raj was still going strong.

Given the statement 'Obituaries fondly recalled his on-air debates and two thumbs up salutes with fellow reviewer Roger Ebert on their eponymous syndicated TV show.', is 'The obituaries were beautiful and written in kind about his accomplishments in the entertainment industry. ' neither a logical follow-up nor a contradiction?

Obituaries fondly recalled his on-air debates and two thumbs up salutes with fellow reviewer Roger Ebert on their eponymous syndicated TV show.###The obituaries were beautiful and written in kind about his accomplishments in the entertainment industry.

From the starting point of 'Obituaries fondly recalled his on-air debates and two thumbs up salutes with fellow reviewer Roger Ebert on their eponymous syndicated TV show.', does 'The obituaries were beautiful and written in kind about his accomplishments in the entertainment industry. ' follow as a logical conclusion?

Obituaries fondly recalled his on-air debates and two thumbs up salutes with fellow reviewer Roger Ebert on their eponymous syndicated TV show.###The obituaries were beautiful and written in kind about his accomplishments in the entertainment industry.

Does 'Obituaries fondly recalled his on-air debates and two thumbs up salutes with fellow reviewer Roger Ebert on their eponymous syndicated TV show.' provide a contradiction to the established premise 'The obituaries were beautiful and written in kind about his accomplishments in the entertainment industry. '

Obituaries fondly recalled his on-air debates and two thumbs up salutes with fellow reviewer Roger Ebert on their eponymous syndicated TV show.###The obituaries were beautiful and written in kind about his accomplishments in the entertainment industry.

Can 'in that other you know uh that i should do it or that or just to think about doing it rat her than having someone tell him to do it i know that was a big thing in our house for a long time was that if i wanted my husband to do something to help' be viewed as neither a logical extension nor a contradiction of 'My husband has been so overworked lately that I can't bring myself to ask him to do much around here.'

in that other you know uh that i should do it or that or just to think about doing it rat her than having someone tell him to do it i know that was a big thing in our house for a long time was that if i wanted my husband to do something to help###My husband has been so overworked lately that I can't bring myself to ask him to do much around here.

Given the context of 'in that other you know uh that i should do it or that or just to think about doing it rat her than having someone tell him to do it i know that was a big thing in our house for a long time was that if i wanted my husband to do something to help', does 'My husband has been so overworked lately that I can't bring myself to ask him to do much around here.' emerge logically?

in that other you know uh that i should do it or that or just to think about doing it rat her than having someone tell him to do it i know that was a big thing in our house for a long time was that if i wanted my husband to do something to help###My husband has been so overworked lately that I can't bring myself to ask him to do much around here.

In response to 'in that other you know uh that i should do it or that or just to think about doing it rat her than having someone tell him to do it i know that was a big thing in our house for a long time was that if i wanted my husband to do something to help', does 'My husband has been so overworked lately that I can't bring myself to ask him to do much around here.' serve as a counterstatement?

in that other you know uh that i should do it or that or just to think about doing it rat her than having someone tell him to do it i know that was a big thing in our house for a long time was that if i wanted my husband to do something to help###My husband has been so overworked lately that I can't bring myself to ask him to do much around here.